HC Upholds Non-Bailable Warrant Against PMLA Accused for Repeated Non-appearances Before Court

Case Details: Rajeev Jhawar v. Directorate of Enforcement - [2024] 161 taxmann.com 112 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ms Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
• Sidharth Luthra, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Advs. Rajiv Bhatnagar, Ayush Kaushik, Anshuman Mohit Chaturvedi, Uddeshya Singh, Satyam Sharma, Ms Aditi, Ms Ritivika Poswal, Kaul Rustom Khan, Sangat Pati & Suhail Ahmed, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal, Pranjal Tripathi & Devendra Kumar Gupta for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR under Sections 7-A/8/9/10/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This was registered pursuant to the receipt of information that Sh. NMP Sinha i.e. Ex. SP of CBI, and the supervisory officer of a case of CBI registered u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Usha Martin, alleged conspiracy with the petitioner i.e. M.D. of Usha Martin, to influence an investigation.

It was also alleged that the petitioner on behalf of the accused company, had agreed to give a bribe to Sh. NMP Sinha. Since, the said offences of criminal conspiracy and offence of bribery were predicate offences, an ECIR was registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Trial Court took cognizance of the ECIR and issued the process against all accused persons.

The anticipatory bail application instituted by the applicant was dismissed by the Trial Court by the impugned order. Subsequently, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner by the Trial Court, which had been impugned in the instant petition.

It was noted that the petitioner had never appeared either before the investigating agency during an investigation or before the learned Trial Court for the last one year despite repeated opportunities granted to him. Further, the petitioner had been residing in Singapore for a long period of time and had not yet appeared before the Trial Court and obtained bail in the present case.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, in such circumstances, the impugned order directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner suffered from no illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the instant application seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was to be dismissed.