-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the applicability of anticipatory bail in cases of economic offences even after the filing of charge-sheets or cognizance by the court. Justice Navin Chawla, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) & Ors., underscored the critical importance of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system.
In the case titled Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) & Ors., the applicants Abraham George, Yogesh Sudhanshu Kumar, and Mahendra Gambhir sought anticipatory bail in connection with economic offences under various sections of the Companies Act, 2013. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) had filed a complaint against them.
The court assessed the maintainability of anticipatory bail post cognizance and clarified the difference between 'arrest' and 'custody'.
Justice Chawla highlighted, "Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable even when cognizance of the offence is taken by the court or a charge-sheet is filed." He distinguished between 'arrest' and 'custody', stating that anticipatory bail applies to scenarios where an individual, despite being summoned, apprehends arrest or custody upon appearance before the trial court.
The court imposed specific conditions on the applicants, considering their cooperation during the investigation without arrest. These conditions were meant to ensure their availability for trial and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Granting anticipatory bail to the applicants, the court ordered their release on bail upon arrest, subject to conditions related to the ongoing trial and conduct towards witnesses, officials, and entities involved.
Date of Decision: 06.03.2024
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) & Ors.
