Published on: November 09, 2023 at 19:41 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Directorate of Enforcement V. M. Gopal Reddy (2022)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Hon’ble Courts must while granting Anticipatory Bail must considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of the offences. It is further held that offences under the special acts such as Money Laundering Act, NDPS, POCSO in any circumstances cannot at par with the ordinary offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
28. By the impugned judgment and order, while granting anticipatory bail the High Court has observed that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable with respect to the anticipatory bail applications/proceedings under Section 438 Cr. P.C. For which the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra).
In the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra), this Court has specifically observed and held that it is the wrong understanding that in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) this Court has held that the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable to the application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. In the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra) in which the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) was pressed into service, it is specifically observed by this Court that it is one thing to say that Section 45 of the Act, 2002 to offences under the ordinary law would not get attracted but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Act, 2002, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act, must get triggered – although the application is under Section 438 Cr. P.C.
Therefore, the observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. is just contrary to the decision in the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra) and the same is on misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra). Once the rigour under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is unsustainable.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
