Important Point
Anticipatory stipulations are interferences with the efficient exercise of statutory functions when dealing with economic offences.

Headnote:Anticipatory Bail—Criminal Procedure Code 1973—Section 438—Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973—Section 41—FERA violations—Pre-arrest bail–Application for anticipatory bail on ground of deteriorating health condition—Sessions Court dismissed application—Order challenged—Learned Single Judge of High Court observed that in case Directorate considers custodial interrogation of respondent necessary to approach Director AIIMS to constitute Board of cardiologists to examine respondent—In case custodial interrogation not feasible open to Directorate officials to interrogate him under care of doctors at AIIMS—Appeals—Anticipatory stipulations are interferences with economic offences—Learned Single Judge ought not to have imposed such conditions—Contention that seized document can be retained for six months unless Directorate extend period—Public interest should not suffer by non-utilization of documents seized —Period extended by six months.
       Held : The authorities should have been given freedom to chalk out such measures as are necessary to protect the health of the person who would be subjected to interrogatory process. They cannot be nailed to fixed modalities stipulated by the court for conducting interrogations. It is not unusual that persons involving themselves in economic offences, particularly those living in affluent circumstances, are afflicted by conditions of cardiac instability. So the authorities dealing with such persons must adopt adequate measures to prevent deterioration of their health during the period of custodial internment. Court would interfere when such authorities fail to adopt necessary measures. But we are not in favour of stipulating in advance modalities to be followed by the authorities for that purpose. According to us such anticipatory stipulations are interferences with the efficient exercise of statutory functions when dealing with economic offences. Hence learned single judge ought not have imposed such conditions on the Directorate. (Para 7)
       Further held : Since the period fixed for return of the seized documents would have expired for no lapse on the part of the officials of the Directorate, we are of the considered opinion that public interest should not suffer by non utilization of the seized documents for interrogating the respondent. We therefore extend the said period for a further period of six months commencing from 4-1-1998. We make it clear that the Directorate shall abide by this extended time and no further extension shall be made by them except with the leave of this Court. (Para 9)
       Result : Appeal of Directorate allowed.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.—Special leave granted.

These two appeals are directed against an order passed by the Delhi High Court which interfered with the order passed by a Sessions Judge dismissing a petition filed by one businessman called Ashok Kumar Jain (who will be referred to as the respondent) for pre-arrest bail.

2. Some officials of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (‘FERA’ for short) conducted a raid in the residential premises of the respondent on 4-1-1997 and seized certain documents which they considered very useful for unearthing instances of large scale FERA violations. The said raid was followed by a few other raids and the Enforcement Directorate (for convenience it is referred to as “the Directorate”) has now started investigation into the alleged FERA violations against the respondent involving millions of US Dollars. Summons were issued to the respondent to appear before the Directorate for interrogation. On 5-1-1997 respondent left India. Though summons were repeated many times respondent did not reciprocate to any one of them and instead he moved the Sessions Court of Delhi for anticipatory bail. In the application (for anticipatory bail) he highlighted his deteriorating health condition as the main ground for granting him bail. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the application and in so doing learned Sessions Judge made the following observations :

“Anticipatory bail definitely hamper the proper and effective investigation. Therefore, extra care and caution has to be taken while dealing with the application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The demand of an individual’s liberty has to be matched with the larger interest of the public and the State. For instance, in the instant case, there are allegations of clandestine siphoning of big amount of precious foreign exchange. Such an offence is against the whole nation. The investigators have to be given full freedom for investigation. The allegations against the petitioner being of very grave and serious nature, the grant of anticipatory bail to this accused will certainly hamper proper investigation. The need for providing medical care and attention to the petitioner, in view of his past medical history, will be taken care of by the department even by the jail authorities in the event of his arrest. Such assurances have been given by the department.”

3. Respondent moved Delhi High Court challenging the aforementioned order. He made a strong plea for a pre-arrest bail order on the strength of medical reports obtained from his cardiologists. Learned single judge, though expressed his view in the order under challenge that the Directorate can arrest the respondent and carry out custodial interrogation, has passed a condition that such arrest shall be “subject to the opinion of the cardiologists of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)”.

4. Learned single judge further observed that in case the Directorate considers custodial interrogation of the respondent necessary “it should approach the Director, AIIMS to constitute a Board of cardiologists to examine the respondent”, and if the said Board reaches the opinion that custodial interrogation is not feasible “ in that event it will be open to the officials to interrogate him under the care of the doctors at the AIIMS”. Studded with such conditions learned single judge modified the order of the Sessions Court. The Directorate has filed this appeal aggrieved by such conditions, and the respondent filed the other appeal aggrieved by the refusal to grant anticipatory bail.

5. This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent and the Sessions Court as well as the High Court have rightly declined to grant such pre-arrest bail order to the respondent. Hence we proceed to consider whether learned single judge of the High Court has gone wrong in imposing conditions on the Directorate regarding the manner in which interrogation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Important PointAnticipatory stipulations are interferences with the efficient exer­cise of statutory functions when dealing with economic offences.

Important Point
Anticipatory stipulations are interferences with the efficient exercise of statutory functions when dealing with economic offences.