Summary
For PMLA accused not arrested before the complaint was filed, appearance on the Special Court’s summons does not create deemed custody or require bail. Section 88 appearance bonds are distinct from bail, and warrant cancellation is not subject to Section 45’s bail conditions. After cognizance, ED cannot use Section 19 to arrest an accused named in that complaint, but may seek justified custody from the Court. The appellants’ warrants were conditionally cancelled upon timely appearance, undertakings and bonds.
Issues
- Whether summons appearance entails custody and a bail application.
- Whether Sections 88 and 205 CrPC apply in PMLA complaints.
- How non-appearance warrants may be cancelled.
- Whether ED may arrest a named accused after cognizance or obtain custody for further investigation.
- What conditional relief applied to the appellants.
Provisions considered
- Sections 43, 44(1)(b), 46, 65 and 71, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002The complaint is governed by compatible CrPC provisions, including Sections 200–205 and 88. The Special Court is a Sessions Court, so Section 437’s specified forum condition did not apply. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 23(a), 24)
- Sections 204, 205 and 88, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Summons normally secures appearance without custody for the category considered. Personal attendance may be exempted for sufficient cause; an appearance bond does not constitute bail. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23)
- Sections 70, 89, 82 and 83, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Non-appearance permits warrants. Cancellation under Section 70(2), with an undertaking where appropriate, is distinct from bail; an outstanding warrant/proclamation process cannot be bypassed simply by tendering a Section 88 bond. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 23(e), 23(g), 23(h))
- Sections 19 and 45(1), Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002After cognizance ED cannot arrest a person named as accused in the complaint under Section 19. Custody for further investigation requires a reasoned court order after hearing; Section 45 does not govern appearance bonds or warrant cancellation. (¶¶ 18, 20, 21, 23, 24)
Held
- The ruling expressly concerns accused not arrested by ED before filing the complaint. Sections 200–205 CrPC apply, and summons is normally the first process; a person already on bail should receive summons. Appearance pursuant to it neither constitutes custody nor requires a fresh bail application. Automatic custody on appearance is unlawful and may violate Article 21. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 23(a), 23(b), 23(c), 24)
- Section 88 is compatible with PMLA and permits discretionary appearance bonds, with or without sureties; bonds need not be required in every case. Accepting such a bond from an accused at liberty is not granting bail. Section 205 also permits exemption from personal attendance on sufficient cause. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23(c), 23(d), 23(f), 23(h))
- Failure to appear after service or breach of an appearance bond permits warrants, ordinarily bailable first and non-bailable if necessary. The accused may seek cancellation under Section 70(2), with regular-attendance undertakings. Where ED had not sought investigative custody, cancellation ordinarily need not entail custody; it is not a bail application and Section 45(1) does not apply. An outstanding warrant or Section 82/83 process cannot simply be bypassed with a Section 88 bond. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 23(e), 23(g), 23(h))
- After cognizance on the complaint, ED and Section 19 authorities cannot use that section to arrest a person shown as accused in it. If further custodial interrogation in the same offence is needed, ED must apply to the Special Court, which must hear the accused, record brief reasons and find custody necessary. Further investigation may still involve Section 19 arrest of someone not named in the complaint, subject to its conditions. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23(i), 23(j), 24)
- The orders refusing anticipatory bail were set aside. Warrants would stand cancelled only if appellants appeared within one month, filed undertakings to attend unless exempted, and furnished satisfactory Section 88 bonds within that month. Warrants were not to be executed during that period; non-compliance permitted further warrants. Once compliant cancellation removed the apprehension, adjudicating anticipatory bail was unnecessary. (¶¶ 22, 25, 26)
Result
Appeals allowed; refusal orders set aside. Warrants conditionally cancelled upon appearance, undertakings and Section 88 bonds within one month; execution stayed for that month. Non-compliance permits warrants. Anticipatory-bail prayer need not be decided after compliance.