CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSHRI CHANDRASWAMI @ NEMI CHAND JAIN ETC.

                  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION                                    A
                                          v.
           SHRI CHANDRASWAMI@ NEMI CHAND JAIN ETC.

                               FEBRUARY 26, 1997

                      [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]                              B



-         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

           S.438 r/w s. 482--Application for anticipatory bail-High Court, by
    Order dated 18.12.1996 directing C.B.I. to give three days notice to applicant C
    before arrest-During investigation, C.B.1. gave notice to applicant-Notice
    challenged and High Court restraining C.B.I. from acting in pursuance to the
    notice-Appeals by C.B.I. challenging later orders of High Court-Held, there
    was no justification for making the impugned orders because of the clear
    language of the direction contained in the order dated 18.12.199fr-The period
    of the required notice having expired it is for the C.B.l. to arrest the applicant D
    or not-:ln the event of arrest of the applican~ the question of grant of bail to
    him would be considered on merits in accordance with law.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 213, 14 of 1997 Etc.
                                                                                     E
          From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.96 and 14.2.97 of the
    Delhi High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 3039/96 and 178 of 1997.

          Ashok Desai, Attorney General for India and K.N. Bhat, Additional
    Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran and Pallav Shishodia for the Appellant.        F
        R.K. Anand, Rajiv Dutta, Anoop Chaudhary, K.K. Manan, Santosh
    Kumar, D.R. Nigam, Vipin Nair, Arun Birbal for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Special leave granted.
                                                                                     G

          These appeals by special leave are against the orders dated January
    20, 1997 and February 14, 1997 passed by the Delhi High Court. These
    orders are a sequel to the order dated December, 18, 1996 passed in
    Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3039 of 1996 passed by S.K. Mahajan, J .. That         H
                                         513
    514                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A order was passed by the learned Judge on an application for anticipatory
    bail made by the respondent. The controversy which requires determina-
    tion by us relates to the meaning of the final direction given in that order.
    The material part of the direction is as under :

                "Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstan-
B           ces of this case and the nature of offence, I direct that in case the
            Centrl Bureau of Investigation intends to arrest the petitioner, it
            will give three days notice to him. This order will be subject to the
            following condition~ :

c                          xxxx           xxxx        xxxx

                  6. The petitioner will appear before the concerned officer of
                  the CBI or any other government agency whenever required
                  in connection with any crime or matter under investigation."

D         For the present purpose it is sufficient to state that the Central
    Bureau of Investigation required production of certain documents and
    being dissatisfied with the response of the respondent, gave a notice on
    January 18, 1997 to the respondent, the material part of which reads as
    under:-
E               "It may please be treated as three days' advance notice in
             compliance to the Order dated 18.12.96 of the Hon'ble High Court
             of Delhi in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3039 of 1996."

          The respondent approached the High Court to assail this notice. The
F   impugned orders have been made by a learned single Judge (Mohd.
    Shamim, J .). The effect of these orders is that CBI has been restrained
    from acting in pursuance of the three days' notice given to the respondent
    which was required to be given to him prior to his arrest by the aforesaid
    order dated December 18, 1996. Hence these appeals.

G       Learned Attorney General submitted that the question whether there
  has been breach of any of the other conditions imposed by the order dated
  December 18, 1996 is a different matter; and the only restriction on the.
  arrest of the respondent imposed by the order was the requirement of three
  days' notice to him, the period of which has expired long back. It is
H submitted that it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the question whether
            CENTRALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATIONv. CHANDRASWAMI                        515

     the failure of the respondent to comply with the requirement of producing        A
     certain documents has resulted in breach of the above quoted condition
     No. (6) which is an additional condition. It is submitted that for this reason
     alone, the impugned orders should be set aside. In reply , Shri R.K. Anand,
     learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the offences are, in
     substance, bailable and the facts of the case do not justify permitting the      B
     arrest of the respondent. He, therefore, contended that these appeals be
     dismissed.

-          In our opinion, the only question for decision by us is the purport of
     the direction contained in the aforesaid order dated December 18, 1996,
     particularly the extract quoted above.                                           C
            In our opinion the language of the direction is clear and admits of
     no ambiguity. The only right given to the respondent thereby is that of three
     days' notice if CBI intended to arrest the respondent. This right given to
     the respondent was hedged with the conditions which followed that direc-
     tion including that in Clause (6) quoted above. In other words, it is not D
     required by the CBI to show also the breach of any of the subsequent
     conditions in addition to giving three days' prior notice to the respondent
     of its intention to arrest him. Admittedly such a notice was given on
     January 18, 1997 and three days' period has expired long back. The
     aforesaid order d~ted December 18, 1996 does not afford any further E
     protection thereunder to the respondent. The period of the required notice
     having expired, it is for the CBI to take the decision whether to arrest the
     respondent or not. In case the arrest is effected, the question of grant of
     bail to the respondent would then be a matter for consideration on merits
     in accordance with law.
                                                                                      F
           We arc constrained to add that there was no justification for making
·1
     the impugned orders because of the clear language of the direction con-
     tained in the orders dated December 18, 1996.

            Consequently, these appeals are allowed in the above manner and
     the impugned orders dated January 20, 1997 and February 14, 1997 are set         G
     aside.

     R.P.                                                       Appeals allowed.