Case: Hdfc Bank Ltd Vs. J.J.Mannan @ J.M.John Paul

3. According to the Bank, the Respondent No.1 in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Mannan Construction Corporation Private Limited, a company engaged in the execution of Highway Contracts and contracts of the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), along with one M/s. Immanuel Projects Private Ltd., applied for a loan of Rs.2,03,40,000/- (Rupees Two Crores, three lakhs and forty thousand) only, for purchase of 6 Krishna Electronic Sensor Paver Finishers from one M/s. Krishna Engineering Works in Ahmedabad. The said loan was duly sanctioned and after signing of necessary Agreements and other documents, six cheques for the loan amount of Rs.2,03,40,000/-, drawn in the name of M/s. Krishna Engineering Works, were handed over to the Respondent No.1 on 9th March, 2006. Subsequently, by a letter dated 24th May, 2006, the Bank informed M/s. Krishna Engineering Works in Ahmedabad that a sum of Rs.2,03,40,000/- had been disbursed to them on account of the Respondent No.1 and requested them to confirm receipt of the same. M/s. Krishna Engineering Works wrote back to the Bank stating that it had not received any payment on account of Mr. J.M. John Paul4. The Bank thereupon caused enquiries to be made and came to learn that no machineries had, in fact, been purchased by the Respondent No.1, and that the Respondent No.1 had colluded with M/s. Immanuel Projects Private Limited and their Directors and one Mr. R.I. Jambert Mathuram with the intention of cheating the Bank and in the process had committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code5. The Bank filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600008 on 27th May, 2006, setting out the facts relating to sanction of the loan and the handing over of the six Bankers cheques in the name of M/s. Krishna Engineering Works. The complaint also contained the manner in which the Respondent No.1 had opened a fictitious account with I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Tuticorin Branch, in the name of M/s. Krishna Engineering Works and deposited the cheques meant for supply of road construction equipment by Krishna Engineering Works of Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the said amount was encashed and transferred to M/s. Matrix Enterprises having its office at No.41, C.G.E. Colony, 5th Street, Tuticorin-628 003, which was holding an account in the Tuticorin Branch of I.C.I.C.I. Bank. The said amounts were again transferred to the account of M/s. Delta Enterprises, also having its office at No.41, C.G.E. Colony, 5th Street, Tuticorin, with the Tuticorin Branch of the I.C.I.C.I. Bank6. After the aforesaid transactions, the moneys were finally credited to the account of the Respondent No.1 in the same Branch of the I.C.I.C.I. Bank. It was also found on enquiry that the addresses of all the above-mentioned companies were that of the residence of the Respondent No.1, Mr. J.M. John Paul7. F.I.R. No.157 of 2006 dated 12th June, 2006, was drawn up on the basis of the aforesaid complaint against the Respondent No.1 and others by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 473 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code8. The Respondent No.1 thereupon filed an application in the Madras High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail and the learned Single Judge of the said High Court, by his order dated 3rd July, 2006, allowed the same upon holding that since the investigating agency had already seized all relevant and vital documents and had recorded the statements of all the important witnesses, the custodial interrogation of the Respondent No.1 was not required

Reasoning: 14. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions referred to in support of their respective cases, we are of the view that the role of the Respondent No.1 in the entire episode did not entitle him to the relief of Anticipatory Bail, much less a blanket order of bail. However, that is now a closed chapter. But what is of relevance is whether the High Court should have worded its order in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean, as has been done by all concerned, that the Respondent No.1 was not required to even appear and surrender before the Court during the entire investigation stage and the trial. Taking advantage of the same, the Respondent No.1 has successfully avoided the Court from the very initial stage of investigation and even the trial. Such kind of an order is not contemplated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as has been repeatedly explained by this Court. The said position has been clearly enunciated in Adri Dharan Dass case (supra). Furthermore, it has also been consistently indicated that no blanket order could be passed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to prevent the accused from being arrested at all in connection with the case. To avoid such an eventuality it was observed in Adri Dharan Dass case (supra) that Anticipatory Bail is given for a limited duration to enable the accused to surrender and to obtain regular bail. The same view was reiterated in Salauddins case (supra) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that Anticipatory Bail should be of limited duration only and primarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the Court granting Anticipatory Bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted15. The object of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the same time the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot also be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the Court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to violence to the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., since even though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and charge is framed against him, he may still not appear before the Court at all even during the trial. Section 438 Cr.P.C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge- sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting Anticipatory Bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial court. If what has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Respondent No.1 has never appeared before the trial court is to be accepted, it will lead to the absurd situation that charge was framed against the accused in his absence, which would defeat the very purpose of Sub-Section (2) of Section 240 Cr.P.C