2022 (4) TMI 1605 - HC - Money Laundering

Cancellation of warrant of arrest filed by u/s 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. - Application for cancellation rejected on the ground that applicant-accused did not appear as and when the prosecution filed their charge-sheet in respect of Crime alleging offences punishable u/S 120-B r/w Sections 407, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that since it is not disputed that the present applicant had cooperated in the investigation and their investigation stands concluded by filing of charge-sheet. The question of arresting the applicant would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2022 passed by trial Court rejecting the application u/S 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. is quashed the impugned order to the extent it relates to rejection of application u/S 70 of subsection (2) of Cr.P.C. is set aside. The subject to the fact that applicant appears and furnishes bail bond to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Judge on or before 12.04.2022. The application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for cancellation of warrant of arrest under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. based on non-appearance during charge-sheet filing.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the rejection of an application for cancellation of a warrant of arrest under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) due to the accused not appearing when the prosecution filed the charge-sheet for various offenses. The accused cooperated during the investigation, which culminated in the charge-sheet being filed before the trial court. The petitioner relied on recent Supreme Court decisions to argue against the necessity of arresting a cooperative accused solely based on the charge-sheet filing. The High Court noted the cooperation of the applicant during the investigation and deemed arresting the applicant as futile post the charge-sheet filing.

The High Court, after considering arguments from both parties, concluded that since the applicant had cooperated during the investigation, arresting them post charge-sheet filing would serve no purpose. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. was quashed, and the rejection was set aside. The applicant was directed to appear and furnish a bail bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Judge by a specified date. The application was disposed of accordingly, subject to compliance with the bail bond requirement by the given deadline.

This judgment highlights the importance of cooperation during the investigation process and questions the necessity of arresting an accused who has already cooperated, especially post the filing of a charge-sheet. The court's decision emphasizes the futility of arresting a cooperative accused after the investigation has concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed. The reliance on recent Supreme Court decisions further strengthens the argument against the automatic arrest of accused individuals who have actively participated in the investigative process.