2019 (11) TMI 1781 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory bail - lower court had summoned the accused petitioners by non-bailable warrants - HELD THAT - Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case the fact that accused Manju Tanwar W/o Sh. Narendra Kumar Tanwar has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail and also the fact that no interrogation is required for the accused petitioners. Without commenting any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case it is deemed just and proper to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The accused petitioners are directed to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Comparison with a similar case where anticipatory bail was granted
3. Arguments by the counsel for the accused petitioners and the Union of India

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. due to a complaint registered against them for offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The lower court had issued non-bailable warrants against the accused petitioners. The petitioner's counsel argued that no interrogation was necessary, citing a previous case where anticipatory bail was granted to another accused person in a similar offense.

2. Reference was made to a case decided by the Apex Court regarding the grant of anticipatory bail. The counsel for the accused petitioners relied on this case to support their plea for anticipatory bail.

3. The Union of India opposed the anticipatory bail application, citing precedents such as P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement and Satpal Singh vs State of Punjab. It was argued that once arrest warrants are issued, the accused should seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the concerned court. The Union of India contended that protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not available after the issuance of arrest warrants.

Considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court examined the facts and circumstances of the case. Noting that one of the accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail and that no interrogation was necessary for the petitioners, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners. The court clarified that this decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. As a result, the accused petitioners were directed to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks, and the concerned court was instructed to accept the bail bonds as appropriate.