2018 (7) TMI 173 - HC - Central Excise

Grant of anticipatory Bail - offences punishable under Sections 9, 9A, and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - For granting anticipatory bail, reasonable apprehension of being arrested is enough. If in the facts and circumstances, the respondent had fear of being arrested and moved the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail and that the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail having regard to those circumstances, there is no illegality in it. Petitioner-Department has no intention to arrest the respondent - It is not understandable as to how the interest of the petitioner has been affected just because the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail for a period of three months. Even otherwise, the petitioner could have approached the Sessions Court itself for cancellation of the anticipatory bail as Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests the Sessions Court also to modify its order. - the petition is meritless and therefore it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 9, 9A, and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a registered case. Legality of the order granting anticipatory bail. Maintainability of the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. Interpretation of a speaking order in the context of anticipatory bail.

Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail without a Registered Case:
The Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the respondent under Sections 9, 9A, and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite no case being registered against him. The petitioner's counsel argued against this grant, stating that anticipatory bail should not have been given in the absence of a registered case. However, the respondent's counsel justified the grant by emphasizing the fear of arrest expressed by the respondent. The Judge found that reasonable apprehension of arrest is sufficient for granting anticipatory bail, especially when the respondent moved the court due to such fear. The Judge cited a Supreme Court judgment to support this reasoning, concluding that the grant of anticipatory bail was not illegal.

2. Legality of the Order Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner contended that the order granting anticipatory bail was not a speaking order. However, upon review, the Judge determined that the Sessions Court had indeed passed a speaking order. The Judge highlighted that the order specified a three-month duration for the anticipatory bail, after which it would become infructuous if no arrest occurred. This clarity in the order indicated that the Sessions Court had applied its mind while passing the order, thus upholding its legality.

3. Maintainability of the Petition Seeking Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. The respondent's counsel argued that the petition was unnecessary, as only summons had been issued to the respondent, and there was no intention to arrest him. The Judge noted that the petitioner could have approached the Sessions Court for modification or cancellation of the anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the petitioner's interest was not substantially affected by the grant of anticipatory bail, the Judge deemed the petition meritless and dismissed it.

4. Interpretation of a Speaking Order in the Context of Anticipatory Bail:
The Judge emphasized the importance of a speaking order in the context of anticipatory bail. By clarifying the duration and conditions of the anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court's order demonstrated a thoughtful consideration of the circumstances. This adherence to legal requirements ensured transparency and accountability in the grant of anticipatory bail, reinforcing the validity of the order.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the grant of anticipatory bail, affirmed the legality of the order, dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, and underscored the significance of a speaking order in the context of anticipatory bail proceedings.