DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (FERA) versus ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 28-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DUKHISHYAM BENUPANI, ASSTT. 
DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE (FERA) 
v. 
ARUN KUMAR BAJORIA 
B 
NOVEMBER 28, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 438-Anticipatory Bai/-
Grant of-Consideration for Court-FERA violations-Order injuncting 
C Directorate from arresting respondent-Time and place for carrying out 
investigations also fixed by High Court-Whether High Court was justified 
in interfering with functions of statutory authorities-Held, No-Such type 
of interference would impede even course of enquiry or investigation into 
serious allegation pendings-It is not the function of court to monitor 
D investigation process so long as such investigation does not transgress any 
provision of law-It must be left to investigating agency to decide venue, 
timings and question and manner of putting such question to persons 
involved-A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest, held 
wyustified-Argument that respondent is a sick person, held not enough to 
claim pre arrest bail. 
E 
F 
In a raid conducted in the residential premises of the respondent, the 
officials of the Enforcement Directorate issued summons to the respondent 
under Section 40 of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act to interrogate the 
respondent in connection with recovery of certain documents and other 
materials in the raid. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the 
summons and praying for interim orders restraining the officials from 
proceeding with the summons. The respondent also filed an application for 
an order u/S 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court 
granted ad interim bail order in favour of the respondent with a condition 
that he should report to the office of the Directorate on every Monday. The 
G Enforcement Directorate challenged the order and filed application for 
cancellation of the bail order. However the Division Bench dismissed the 
application while directing the department to interrogate the accused but not 
to put the accused on arrest till the applications pending disposal were 
decided. The department filed special leave petition alleging that the pre 
arrest bail order passed by the Sessions Court and the subsequent order 
H 
566 
• 
, 
DUKHlSHY AM BENUPA TI ASSTT. DIRECTOR v. A.K. BA.IORIA 567 
passed by the High Court would very badly affect the effectiveness and utility A 
of the inquiry which the Directorate had to conduct into the serious allegations 
of FERA violations cases against the respondent; that respondent was 
successfully eluding from grilling interrogatories by adopting dilatory and 
contumacious tactics and that the respondent had suppressed the fact of his 
arrest earlier in a serious case of FERA violation involving a whopping sum B 
of 37 crores of rupees and that he was continuing on bail. 
The respondent submitted that he presented himself for being 
interrogated on many days subsequent to the High Court order and nothing 
incriminatory was elicited from him so far and that the respondent was a 
sick person entitled to a pre arrest bail order. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case while sustaining the order granting 
c 
pre arrest bail to the respondent in FERA violation case, the officials of the 
Directorate are injuncted by the Division Bench of the High Court from 
arresting the respondent and the time and place for carrying out the D 
interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision 
on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. Such type of 
interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into 
the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench 
made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which E 
they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under 
challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes 
so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It 
must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and 
the question and the manner of putting such question to persons involved in 
such offences. A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would F 
make his interrogation a mere ritual. Considerations to be weighed with the 
court while dealing with a prayer for pre-arrest bail order are materially 
different from a post-arrest bail application. The c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.