2021 (1) TMI 1180 - SC - Money Laundering

Denial of anticipatory bail - allegation is that between 21 August 2015, when his successor was elected, and the assumption of office on 31 August 2015, the appellant had executed four pattas causing a deficit of ₹ 32,133 to the treasury - offences under the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c), (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 - HELD THAT - Since the charge sheet has already been filed and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 would be in order. It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC
- Allegations of executing illegal transactions causing a deficit to the treasury
- Legal grounds for granting anticipatory bail
- Consideration of charge sheet submission and cooperation in investigation
- Arguments against anticipatory bail by the State of Rajasthan
- Decision on granting anticipatory bail

In the judgment, the appellant, who was the Chairperson of a municipality, filed an appeal against the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The appellant was accused of executing illegal transactions causing a deficit to the treasury between the election of his successor and his assumption of office. The charge sheet was submitted after investigation for various offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the Indian Penal Code 1860. The appellant's counsel argued that the arrest warrant issued by the trial judge was contrary to legal provisions and previous court judgments, emphasizing the delay between the FIR and charge sheet submission. The State of Rajasthan opposed anticipatory bail, citing the execution of transactions after the appellant's term had ended.

The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, considered the facts and circumstances and granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 to the appellant. The Court noted the filing of the charge sheet and the appellant's cooperation in the investigation. It directed that the appellant, upon arrest, should be released on bail with conditions set by the trial court. The Court allowed the appeal in favor of granting anticipatory bail.

In a companion criminal appeal involving a co-accused, the Court followed the same reasoning and directed the release on bail of the petitioner in connection with the same FIR. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of in both cases.