CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SHRI CHANDRASWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ETC.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 26-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
A 
v. 
SHRI CHANDRASWAMI@ NEMI CHAND JAIN ETC. 
FEBRUARY 26, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.438 r/w s. 482--Application for anticipatory bail-High Court, by 
Order dated 18.12.1996 directing C.B.I. to give three days notice to applicant C 
before arrest-During investigation, C.B.1. gave notice to applicant-Notice 
challenged and High Court restraining C.B.I. from acting in pursuance to the 
notice-Appeals by C.B.I. challenging later orders of High Court-Held, there 
was no justification for making the impugned orders because of the clear 
language of the direction contained in the order dated 18.12.199fr-The period 
of the required notice having expired it is for the C.B.l. to arrest the applicant D 
or not-:ln the event of arrest of the applican~ the question of grant of bail to 
him would be considered on merits in accordance with law. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 213, 14 of 1997 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.96 and 14.2.97 of the 
Delhi High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 3039/96 and 178 of 1997. 
E 
Ashok Desai, Attorney General for India and K.N. Bhat, Additional 
Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran and Pallav Shishodia for the Appellant. F 
R.K. Anand, Rajiv Dutta, Anoop Chaudhary, K.K. Manan, Santosh 
Kumar, D.R. Nigam, Vipin Nair, Arun Birbal for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Special leave granted. 
These appeals by special leave are against the orders dated January 
G 
20, 1997 and February 14, 1997 passed by the Delhi High Court. These 
orders are a sequel to the order dated December, 18, 1996 passed in 
Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3039 of 1996 passed by S.K. Mahajan, J .. That H 
513 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A order was passed by the learned Judge on an application for anticipatory 
bail made by the respondent. The controversy which requires determina-
tion by us relates to the meaning of the final direction given in that order. 
The material part of the direction is as under : 
B 
c 
"Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstan-
ces of this case and the nature of offence, I direct that in case the 
Centrl Bureau of Investigation intends to arrest the petitioner, it 
will give three days notice to him. This order will be subject to the 
following condition~ : 
xxxx 
xxxx 
xxxx 
6. The petitioner will appear before the concerned officer of 
the CBI or any other government agency whenever required 
in connection with any crime or matter under investigation." 
D 
For the present purpose it is sufficient to state that the Central 
E 
F 
G 
Bureau of Investigation required production of certain documents and 
being dissatisfied with the response of the respondent, gave a notice on 
January 18, 1997 to the respondent, the material part of which reads as 
under:-
"It may please be treated as three days' advance notice in 
compliance to the Order dated 18.12.96 of the Hon'ble High Court 
of Delhi in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3039 of 1996." 
The respondent approached the High Court to assail this notice. The 
impugned orders have been made by a learned single Judge (Mohd. 
Shamim, J .). The effect of these orders is that CBI has been restrained 
from acting in pursuance of the three days' notice given to the respondent 
which was required to be given to him prior to his arrest by the aforesaid 
order dated December 18, 1996. Hence these appeals. 
Learned Attorney General submitted that the question whether there 
has been breach of any of the other conditions imposed by the order dated 
December 18, 1996 is a different matter; and the only restriction on the. 
arrest of the respondent imposed by the order was the requirement of three 
days' notice to him, the period of which has expired long back. It is 
H submitted that it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the question whether 
-
·1 
CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATIONv. CHANDRASWAMI 
515 
the failure of the respondent to comply with the requirement of producing A 
certain documents has resulted in breach of the above quoted condition 
No. (6) which is an additional condition. It is submitted that for this reason 
alone, the impugned orders should be set aside. In reply , Shri R.K. Anand, 
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the offences are, in 
substance, bailable and the facts of the case do not justify permitting the B 
arrest of the respondent. He, therefo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.