Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently addressed a crucial aspect of criminal procedure, emphasizing that an accused, who voluntarily surrenders before the court even without a summoning order, cannot be taken into custody. The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal clarified that a bail application filed by such an accused, in the absence of a summoning order, cannot be entertained. The case involves Souvik Bhattacharya, son of TMC MLA Manik Bhattacharya, who surrendered before the trial court in a money laundering case, leading to his remand in custody.

Arguments:

Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Luthra, representing Souvik Bhattacharya, contended that his client should not be remanded to custody in the absence of a summoning order. Luthra highlighted the mistake made by the lawyer who filed a bail application before the trial court without the necessary summoning order. The argument centered on the basic procedural flaw and the misconception of fact and law in applying for bail without a court-issued summoning order.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, in its order, underscored the fundamental error in the proceedings before the trial court. It criticized the trial court for issuing a summons without a formal order and noted the non-application of mind in this regard. The bench clarified that, without a summoning order, the application for bail could not have been entertained. Despite acknowledging the error in the bail application, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the accused on bail, emphasizing that it wasn’t expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court left room for further proceedings by the Special Court and the Enforcement Directorate, as deemed necessary under the law.