Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein with respect to the economic offences Supreme Court has observed as follows:
Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Directorate of Enforcement is the Investigator of economic offences in India
Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( FEMA)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)
Foreign Exchange Management Act ( FEMA) Rules
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Rules
Scheduled Offences under PMLA
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA)
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Ammended FERA)
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA)
Connected Laws
- Customs Act, 1969
- Gold (Control) Act, 1968Gold (Control) Act, 1968
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Consideration of Bail
In Fida Hussain Bohra Vs. The State of Maharashtra, where in the case of a charge involving criminal misappropriation of public funds some accused were granted bail, but the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the Appellant. Supreme Court held that the appeal from an order granting bail had to be considered differently. It is, however, material to note that SC also observed in paragraph 8 that correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Appellate Court setting aside an order granting bail or an order of cancellation of bail had to be considered on particular facts of each case.
In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, was heavily relied upon, wherein this Court has held that where the accused has joined the investigation, is cooperating with the investigating agency, and is not likely to abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided.
In Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), and thereafter observed that the remedy u/s 439(2) to approach the High Court is also available where the State is aggrieved by the Sessions Judge granting bail on the basis of unjustified, illegal or perverse order. This paragraph 11 reads as follows:
11. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made clear by this Court in Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), In that case the Court observed as under: (SCC p.124, para 16)
If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court u/s 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existing, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court.
High Court’s inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 is not affected by the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That the High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 on the basis of self-imposed restriction is a different aspect. It cannot be denied that for securing the ends of justice, the High Court can interfere with the order which causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another,