Anticipatory bail in economic offences demands rigorous scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Holding that economic offences pose a grave threat to the nation’s financial stability and public confidence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that anticipatory bail in such cases demands rigorous scrutiny. The Bench ruled that granting pre-arrest liberty in frauds involving public funds could impede investigations and undermine the justice system.

Advertisement

The assertions came as Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the plea of an accused in a Rs 65 lakh bank fraud case after ruling that economic offences, by their very nature, stood apart for their potential to inflict widespread harm and therefore warrant a highly cautious approach.

An FIR in the matter was registered after a bank alleged that the petitioner and his wife obtained a Rs 65 lakh loan “with an intention to defraud it while mortgaging the two properties”. It was alleged that the duo, without first redeeming a parcel of land, proceeded to sell it for Rs 1 crore.

Justice Goel asserted that the allegations at the heart of the case centred on the egregious act of defrauding a public sector bank — an offence that directly compromised substantial public funds. The court added that it was a fundamental principle of law that petitions for anticipatory bail, especially those stemming from economic offences involving public money, were required to be subjected to rigorous and exacting scrutiny.

“Economic offences by their very nature, occupy a singular and exceptionally serious position within the criminal landscape. They are distinguished by their inherent capacity to inflict widespread detriment upon the general populace and to undermine the stability and integrity of the national economy,” Justice Goel said.

The court added judicial sanction of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would not only have created a formidable impediment to the thorough and unimpeded progress of the ongoing investigation but also would, regrettably, have constituted a direct affront to the well-established legal principles that consistently advocated a cautious and restrictive approach to granting pre-arrest liberty in cases of such gravity and societal impact.

“Such a grant could be perceived as undermining public confidence in the financial system and the administration of justice. It is befitting to mention here that while adjudicating the bail pleas, particularly in cases concerning to defraud the bank by obtaining false loan, necessitates a meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors. Paramount among these is the inherent gravity and seriousness of the offence. Given the inherent nature and profound gravity of offences, this Court finds itself disinclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for,” the court said.

Dismissing the plea, the court added that it was of the considered opinion that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case. His custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation and to unravel the truth.