In a recent judicial revelation, the Supreme Court has illuminated a critical legal loophole, asserting that an accused individual who voluntarily surrenders before a court cannot be subjected to custody, particularly when the court has not issued a summoning order subsequent to acknowledging the case.
The court emphasized that even if the court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet, without the issuance of a summoning order, the accused remains exempt from custody. Consequently, any bail application submitted by such an accused, sans a summoning order, would be deemed inadmissible.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal scrutinized a petition filed by Souvik Bhattacharya, son of TMC MLA Manik Bhattacharya, entangled in a money laundering case since January 2023, subsequent to his voluntary surrender before the trial court.
In this particular instance, the Trial Court, acting on a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, had initiated proceedings against Souvik. Despite the absence of a summoning order, a summons was issued to the appellant, leading to his voluntary surrender. Consequently, his bail plea was rejected by both the Trial and High Courts, prompting the matter to reach the Supreme Court.
Senior Counsel Mr. Siddharth Luthra, representing Souvik, argued vehemently against his client’s remand to custody in the absence of a summoning order, underscoring the legal fallacy in summoning an accused without a court order.
During the proceedings, Luthra acknowledged an error committed by Souvik’s previous legal representation, triggering Justice Trivedi’s suggestion for mandatory training for lawyers.
In its ruling, the Apex Court criticized the Trial Court’s oversight, denouncing the issuance of summons without proper judicial authorization as a “non-application of mind.” The court also highlighted the misconception of law evident in the bail application process before the Trial Court.
Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered Souvik’s release on bail, refraining from expressing any opinion on the case’s merits while allowing further legal recourse for both parties.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a stark reminder of the intricacies within the justice system and the importance of adherence to procedural norms.
