Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(6) The petitioners want me to grant them anticipatory bail. As per Mr.Ashok Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the "Hawala case" has ended in what he called a "fiasco" with practically all the accused discharged and as the Jain diaries, the bed-rock of the Hawala case, have been held to be of no evidentiary value, the cases against the petitioners too would meet the same fate as they too are based on the said diaries. It was also argued that as according to the Hawala Case the real culprits were the bureaucrats and politicians who had allegedly enriched their coffers through the conspiratorial hands of the Jains and as all of them had been released on anticipatory or regular bail orders, there was absolutely no legal justification to deny similar relief to the petitioners and in support my attention was drawn to the order granting anticipatory bail to L.K.Advani one of the many accused persons in the Hawala case. It was further argued by Mr.Arora that the petitioners had gone abroad in pursuit of their legitimate business interests and had always shown their willingness to extend all possible assistance to the Investigators. He drew my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in K.L.Verma v. State (S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 3278 and 3278A of 1996) and submitted that in case of the petitioners too an order for anticipatory bail could be passed on similar terms. Mr.Arora felt that the Union of India and the C.B.I. who had not opposed the anticipatory bail applications of L.K.Advani and others in Hawala Case were adopting with regard to the petitioners an attitude which was, according to him, arbitrary, unfair, oppressive and unreasonable.

(8) Though Mr.Arora invited me to go deep into the allegations made in the complaints in question and so also into the intricacies of the Hawala case, I think I need to steer clear from the molasses for it is no forum to go deep into the issues involved or to examine in depth either the allegations made or the evidence collected or not collected and its legal efficacy. That would be within the province of the trial court.

(9) Though Mr.Arora drew my attention to the order granting anticipatory bail to L.K.Advani in the Hawala Case (See: L.K.Advani v. State (C.B.I.) 1996 (1) Ad 907) I do not think the order of which, incidentally, I happened to be the author, can act as a binding precedent for the simple reason that a circumstance which in a given case turns out to be conclusive may have no more than ordinary signification in another case. L.K.Advani had neither left the shores of the country nor had made himself scarce to the Investigating agencies. In his case there was also no apprehension of abscondence. But then, look at the petitioners. They have neither obeyed the call of the summons issued nor the command of the non-bailable warrants. Ameer successfully thwarted the attempts to extradite him from Hong Kong. Both of them are now ensconced comfortably in Dubai while the Investigating Agencies in India are breathlessly engaged in the exercise of getting them back. No, L.K.Advani provides no precedent.