LexHDFC BANK LTD. versus J.J. MANNAN @ J.M. JOHN PAUL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 590 A HDFC BANK LTD. ~ . v. J.J. MANNAN @ J.M. JOHN PAUL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 2415 of 2009) B DECEMBER 16, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ,.. . c s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Scope of - HELD: High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to accused, worded its order in such a way that it could be, and wa~ interpreted by all concerned to mean that accused was not required to even appear and surrender before court during entire investigation D stage and trial - Such kind of order is not contemplated uls 438 - No blanket order could be passed uls 438 to prevent A •. the accused from being arrested at all in connection with the case - Order of High Court modified to the extent that accused shall surrender before trial court forth with and pray E for regular bail. On a complaint made by the appellant-Bank that it had been cheated of Rs.2,04,40,000/- by respondent no. 1 and others, an FIR was drawn up accused on 12.6.2006 ) against the persons named in the complaint, for offences F punishable u/ss. 419, 420, 468, 473 read with s.120-B IPC. Respondent no. 1 applied for and was granted anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC by the High Court by its order dated 3.7.2006. G In the instant appeal filed by the Bank, it was contended for the appellant that the High Court misapplied the provisions of s.438 CrPC and could not '( ... have granted a blanket order of anticipatory bail upto the end of the trial. It was submitted that respondent no. 1 H 590 HDFC BANK LTD. v. J.J. MANNAN @ J.M. JOHN 591 PAUL & ANR. - J never appeared in court even once, at any stage of the A case, and did not even surrender and obtain regular bail. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 438 Cr.P.C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism B for an accused to be released on ba'i'I should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the "" investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge-sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the court and pray for c regular bail. On the strength of an order granting anticipafdry bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial court. [Para 15] [598-A-C] 1.2. In the instant case, the role of respondent No.1 D ' -· ,/.. in the entire episode did not entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail, much less a blanket order of bail. The High Court worded its order in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean, as has been done by all E concerned, that respondent No.1 was not required to even appear and surrender before the court during the entire investigation stage and the trial. Taking advantage \ of the same, respondent No.1 has successfully avoided ' the court from the very initial stage of investigation and even the trial. Such kind of an order is not contemplated F u/s 438 Cr.P.C. as has been repeatedly explained by this Court. [Para 14] [596·G-H; 597-A-C] Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal 2005 (2) SCR 188 = (2005) 4 SCC 303; and Salauddin Abdulsamad G y Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra 1995 ( 6 ) SMi>pl. SCR 556 = (1996) 1 sec 667-- relied on. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab 1980 (3) H 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A SCR 383 = (1980) 2 SCC 565; and Savitri Agarwal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2009 (10) SCR 978 = JT 2009 (9) SC 460 = (2009) 8 SCC 325, referred to. 1.3. The order of the High Court dated 3rd July, 2006, is modified to the extent that respondent No.1 shall 8 surrender before the trial court forthwith and pray for regular bail. The trial court shall dispose of the application on merits, in accordance with law, before proceeding further with the trial. [Para 16) [598-D-E] c D E F Case Law Reference: 2005 (2) SCR 188 relied on 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 556 relied on 1980 (3) SCR 383 referred to 2009 (10) SCR 978 referred to para 11 para 11 para 12 para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2415 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 3.7.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Original Petition No. 15217 of 2006 and Crl. M.P. No. 3784 of 2006. Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant. Rajiv Dutta, K.P. Narajanan, Anukul Raj, K.K. Mani, S. Thananjayan for the Respondent. The J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.