1992 (7) TMI 350 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Alleged violations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).
3. Custodial interrogation and its necessity.
4. Public interest vs. individual liberty.

Summary:

1. Application for Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following his arrest by the CBI on 4-6-1992 in connection with a major financial scam. The petitioner argued that his detention could not be continued indefinitely as it would amount to punishment before the alleged offences were established.

2. Alleged Violations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA):
During a search of Niranjan Shah's premises on 31st May 1992, the Income Tax Department discovered documents indicating violations under FERA. The Enforcement Directorate's investigation revealed that the petitioner and his brothers were involved in foreign exchange transactions. Statements from the petitioner's brothers were recorded under Section 40 of FERA, but they denied any involvement. The Enforcement Directorate sought to interrogate the petitioner regarding these violations.

3. Custodial Interrogation and its Necessity:
The Enforcement Directorate argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to extract relevant information and confront the petitioner with evidence. They contended that interrogation while the petitioner was on bail would be ineffective as he could prepare answers and receive advice from his advisers. The court acknowledged the need for custodial interrogation to effectively investigate the complex web of offences under FERA.

4. Public Interest vs. Individual Liberty:
The court weighed the petitioner's liberty against the public interest in investigating and prosecuting economic offences. It noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 4-6-1992 and that some information related to FERA violations had emerged from the CBI interrogation. Despite the petitioner's willingness to undergo interrogation while on bail, the court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for effective custodial interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate to investigate the alleged FERA violations. The application was dismissed in the interest of public justice and the thorough investigation of economic offences.