LI Network
Published on: February 18, 2024 at 10:00 IST
The Supreme Court has emphasized that an accused who voluntarily surrenders before the Court cannot be taken into custody, even if the Court, having taken cognizance of the chargesheet, has not issued a summoning order against them.
The Court further clarified that a bail application filed by such an accused, who surrenders without a summoning order, will not be entertained.
The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by Souvik Bhattacharya, the son of TMC MLA Manik Bhattacharya, who was remanded to custody in a money laundering case in January 2023 after voluntarily surrendering before the trial court.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, highlighted the absence of any summoning order or warrant under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., stating that without such an order, the appellant could not have been arrested or taken into custody.
Souvik Bhattacharya’s case stemmed from the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint, leading to the Trial Court taking cognizance of offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Despite no summoning order being issued, the summons was sent to the appellant, who voluntarily surrendered. Subsequently, his bail application was rejected by both the Trial and High Courts, prompting the matter to reach the Supreme Court.
Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Luthra, representing Souvik, argued that remanding the accused to custody without a summoning order was improper. Luthra acknowledged a procedural mistake in filing a bail application before the trial court in the absence of the summons order.
The Supreme Court criticized the Trial Court for its “non-application of mind” and identified a flaw in the proceedings. The court noted a misconception of fact and law during the bail application, emphasizing that without a summoning order, the application should not have been entertained.
In its order, the Supreme Court directed the release of the accused on bail, clarifying that it did not express any opinion on the case’s merits. The court highlighted that the Special Court could take appropriate actions, and the Enforcement Directorate was free to pursue legal proceedings as required by law.
Case Title: SOUVIK BHATTACHARYA vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOLKATA ZONAL OFFICE II,]