LILARAM L REVANI Vs. R D GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lilaram A. Revani, a resident of Baroda has filed the present petition under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Shri R.D. Gandhi, Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, got an information on 14-4-1997 that the present petitioner and his brother Mangaram are dealing in foreign currency without holding any valid licence issued by Reserve Bank of India and they are carrying out the said business in their two shops titled as M/s. Janu Emporium and M/s. Vijay Stores. On getting the said information, he carried out a raid on the shop of M/s. Janu Emporium which is owned by the present petitioner and at the time of the said raid, the petitioner's brother Mangaram was present there and at the time of the raid, they found foreign currency in U.S. $ 9355/- and Indian currency of Rs. 4.80 lacs. When the said, search and raid was going on, it is the claim of the respondent No. 1 that, one person had come there to sell U.K. $ 230/- and the said amount was also seized and the statement of the said person was also recorded and thereafter, the petitioner's brother Mangaram was detained by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued a summons to the present petitioner on 15.4.1997 to appear before him. As he did not turn up, a second summons was issued for his appearance on 24.4.1997. But, on 23.4.1997, the prsent petitioner represented before respondent No. 1-Chief Enforcement Officer through his advocate that he was ill and he was advised to have bed rest for two weeks and therefore, he may be granted die said permission not to appear on 24.4.1997. On getting the said application, respondent No. 1 informed the Advocate of the presnt petitioner to inform the address where the petitioner was taking bed rest. But the petitioner informed through his advocate the advocate was not bound to disclose the same as it was privilege communication between the Advocate and his client. He had again sent a telegram making the same prayer which was made in the application of 23.4.1997 and the same was also replied in the same manner by respondent No. 1 and thereafter he has "come before this Court to get the anticipatory bail.

(3.) The object of anticipatory .bail is to relieve a person from necessary apprehension or disgrace. Section 438 of CrPC is an extraordinary remedy and should be resorted to only in special cases. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule. It is to be granted only when the Court is convinced that the person is of such a status that he would not misuse his liberty. For invoking the aid of anticipatory bail apart from the conditions of Sec. 437 of CrPC a special case should be made out for passing the order. It must be remembered that an order of anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. Some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, bearing this aspect regarding the anticipatory bail, I proceed to consider the claim made by the petitioner.