2022 (4) TMI 1606 - 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 30.04.2022. 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 accused's non-appearance at the time of charge-sheet filing.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the challenge to the rejection of the warrant cancellation application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. due to the accused's absence at the time of charge-sheet filing. The accused had cooperated during the investigation, leading to the chargesheet being filed. The petitioner cited recent Supreme Court decisions to argue that arresting a cooperative accused upon charge-sheet filing is unnecessary. The Court acknowledged the accused's cooperation in the investigation and deemed arresting them futile post-investigation completion.

The Court quashed the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., provided the accused appears and furnishes a bail bond by a specified date. The judgment emphasized that since the investigation concluded with the chargesheet, arresting the accused would serve no purpose. The application was disposed of accordingly, with compliance required by a set deadline.