2022 (8) TMI 1504 - HC - Money Laundering

Cancellation of warrant of arrest filed by petitioner u/s 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. - petitioner accused did not appear when the prosecution filed their charge-sheet alleging offences punishable u/S 120-B r/w Sections 407 420 201 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w Section Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that since it is not disputed that the present petitioner had cooperated in the investigation which now stands concluded by filing of charge-sheet the question of arresting the petitioner would be an exercise in futility. Since the factum of petitioner s cooperation during investigation is not denied by the investigating agency this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to furnish surety and security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court which if done latest by 26th August 2022 shall be accepted for grant of anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as found fit by the Trial Court provided there is no other legal impediment. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Special Judge regarding warrant of arrest in a criminal case.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered a petition challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal regarding the cancellation of a warrant of arrest in a criminal case. The petition was filed under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Special Judge had decided to keep the warrant of arrest in abeyance until a future date, as the petitioner accused did not appear when the prosecution filed a charge-sheet for various offenses. The charge-sheet alleged offenses under sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner had cooperated during the investigation, which led to the filing of the charge-sheet on 25.01.2022.

The petitioner's counsel referred to recent judgments of the Apex Court to argue against the necessity of arresting an accused who had cooperated during the investigation solely based on the filing of a charge-sheet. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, concluded that since the petitioner had cooperated during the investigation, arresting the petitioner would serve no purpose. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's cooperation was not disputed by the investigating agency.

As a result, the High Court disposed of the petition with a direction for the petitioner to provide surety and security to the satisfaction of the Trial Court by 26th August, 2022. Upon fulfilling this condition, the Trial Court was instructed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on suitable terms and conditions, provided there were no other legal obstacles. The Court also ordered compliance with the rules regarding copies of the order.