9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 76 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Scheduled offences - whether the Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued against the petitioner are liable to be quashed? - HELD THAT - As recorded in order dated 05.12.2023, the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Trial Court. However, the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed for that day only by the link Court which was hearing the matters on the said day. An exemption application was again preferred by the petitioner on 05.01.2024, and the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court considering his previous conduct of repeated absence from the Court and also the fact that he was not on bail in this case. The learned Trial Court had also directed the petitioner to appear physically on the next date of hearing failing which NBW would be issued against him - Despite there being clear directions for the petitioner to appear physically before the learned Trial Court, another exemption application on his behalf was filed on 02.02.2024, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court with the observations that there was repeated physical absence of the petitioner before the Court, despite giving assurance/ undertaking to do so, on previous various dates, and thus, there were no grounds to allow the exemption application as he was not even on bail in this case, and also considering the fact that no relief had been granted to the petitioner/accused by this Court in the connected CBI case. The learned Trial Court had dismissed the exemption application filed on behalf of petitioner and had observed that Bailable Warrants were not being issued against the petitioner, and an opportunity was being afforded to him, but with a clarification that his failure to appear physically on the next date of hearing would lead to issuance of NBW against him. On 11.08.2023, 19.09.2023, 05.12.2023, though he was allowed to appear virtually by the learned Trial Court, it was observed that the same was allowed only for one occasion and he had to appear physically before the Court - Having taken note of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court on 31.05.2023, 19.07.2023, 11.08.2023, 19.09.2023, 05.12.2023, 05.01.2024, 02.02.2024, this Court is of the opinion that despite the fact that the petitioner had not obtained bail from the learned Trial Court after cognizance had been taken and summons had been issued against him, the learned Trial Court was lenient with the petitioner on several occasions by not issuing warrants against him, though he was not appearing physically before the Court despite repeated directions in this regard by the learned Trial Court. In this Court s opinion, what can be readily discerned from the records of the case and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court is that the petitioner had been afforded several opportunities by the learned Trial Court, to appear before it physically and repeated warnings had been issued that his failure to appear before the Court would lead to issuance of coercive process i.e. NBW. It is only thereafter that the learned Trial Court was left with no other option but to issue NBW against the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the learned Trial Court had also considered in its previous orders, the conduct of the petitioner during the course of investigation i.e. his non-appearance before the investigating officer despite five summons being served upon him, the fact that complaint under Section 174 of IPC had been filed already against him by the prosecuting agency, and also the fact that NBWs had been issued against him in the connected CBI case and relief had been denied to the petitioner by this Court also in the CBI case as he had failed to return to India despite giving undertakings on numerous occasions. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 suffers from no illegality or infirmity insofar as it has directed issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against the present petitioner - the present bail application alongwith pending application stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner's non-appearance and exemption applications. 3. Legal standards for issuance of NBW. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued against the petitioner The petitioner filed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 by the Trial Court issuing NBW against him. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court issued NBW despite his exemption application and no prior issuance of Bailable Warrants. The petitioner cited precedents like Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to support his claim that NBW should not be issued without prior Bailable Warrants and that his physical absence does not imply evasion of court processes. Issue 2: Petitioner's non-appearance and exemption applicationsThe petitioner contended that he had appeared via video-conferencing on multiple occasions as allowed by the Trial Court and that his anticipatory bail application was pending before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that the Trial Court should not have issued NBW while his bail application was pending. The Directorate of Enforcement argued that the petitioner had repeatedly avoided physical appearance despite being summoned and that NBW was justified due to his non-cooperation and evasion. Issue 3: Legal standards for issuance of NBWThe court analyzed whether the NBW issued against the petitioner on 02.02.2024 was justified. The court noted the petitioner's repeated non-appearance despite multiple opportunities and clear directions for physical appearance. The Trial Court had refrained from issuing Bailable Warrants initially and had given the petitioner several chances to appear physically. The court emphasized that the issuance of NBW was a last resort after the petitioner's continued non-compliance. The court referenced the decision in Inder Mohan Goswami, highlighting that NBW should be issued only when summons or Bailable Warrants are unlikely to achieve the desired result, balancing personal liberty and societal interest. The court found that the Trial Court had acted within its discretion after the petitioner's repeated failures to appear physically, despite clear warnings and opportunities. In conclusion, the court held that the impugned order dated 02.02.2024, issuing NBW against the petitioner, was justified and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The petitioner's application was dismissed, and it was clarified that this judgment does not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Judgment: The present bail application along with pending application stands dismissed. Judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
|
