Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants should follow established procedures; lesser measures like bailable warrants must be considered first to uphold the rights of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. G. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate. Perused the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and materials on record.

3. By filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner, who happens to the Power of Attorney Holders of a company, namely, M/s. Artha Tatwa Infra India Ltd., seeks intervention of this Court in the matter of issuance of NBW vide order dated 13.11.2023 passed by the learned Spl. Judge, CBI-I-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, BBSR in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No.34 of 2016.

4. The factual background of the case, bereft of all unnecessary details, is that the Petitioner is one of the Power of Attorney Holders on behalf of the M/s. Artha Tatwa Infra India Ltd. for a land, however, he has not paid any money to the main accused for execution of such Power of Attorney. It has been alleged that the Petitioner is instrumental in transferring such property situated at Plot No.582 of Khata No.272/132 in Hatasahi Mouza, Bhubaneswar to one M/s. Orisons Properties Pvt. Ltd. without any payment of consideration amount. It is also stated that his flat in Trishna Orchid Apartment, Bhubaneswar which stands recorded in the name of his wife, who has purchased from one Chitta Ranjan Champatiray, who happens to be the Father in- law of Srikrushna Padhi, was the accountant of AT Group of Companies as well as a close aid of Pradeep Kumar Sethy a kingpin of chit fund scam in the State of Odisha. On such allegations the complaint case was registered bearing (PMLA) No.34 of 2016 at the instance of the Assistant Director, ED against the present Petitioner along with eleven others.

5. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken under Section 3 read with Section 70 (1) & (2) of the PMLA Act punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002. The prime accused persons namely, Pradeep Kumar Sethy, Manoj Kumar Pattanaik and above named Srikrushna Padhy were in custody. While the matter stood thus, learned Trial Court directed the personal appearance of the present Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to dispense with his personal attendance. Such application under Section 205 , it is stated, was rejected mechanically by the learned Trial Court. Such rejection order was challenged before this Court by filing CRLMC No.3008 of 2019 which is still sub-judice before this Court. Basing upon the aforesaid facts, the E.D. is repeatedly pressurizing the local police to arrest the Petitioner in connection with the present case for which the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing ABLAPL No.13514 of 2023. Prior to the filing of the aforesaid anticipatory bail application, the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing an application which was registered as ABLAPL No.14928 of 2021. Such ABLAPL was disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2023 by holding that such application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

6. List of dates filed on behalf of the Petitioner reveals the following chronology of events. On 22.02.2018, learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under PMLA Act, 2002, Khurda took cognizance in the Complaint Case (PMLA) No.34 of 2016. On 30.10.2019, learned Sessions Judge, Khurda under PMLA Act rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. On 27.1