Antipatory Bail in The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 – in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Overview of The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, commonly known as FEMA, was introduced in India to replace the earlier Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), in order to liberalize and simplify the foreign exchange regime in the country. The main objective of FEMA was to facilitate external trade and payments, promote the orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India, and integrate the Indian economy with the global economy. Unlike its predecessor, FEMA was formulated with the intent to make offenses relating to foreign exchange civil offenses, as opposed to criminal offenses under FERA.

FEMA is administered by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and provides comprehensive management of foreign exchange transactions. The act extended to the whole of India, applying also to its residents outside the country and to branches, offices, and agencies owned or controlled by a person resident in India. It has a wide scope, including all aspects of buying, selling, and exchanging of foreign currency, and holding of foreign exchange.

  • Residents and Transactions: FEMA defines the term ‘resident’ and stipulates that an individual’s residential status will govern the transactions they are permitted to carry out. Residents are given more liberty in terms of holding, owning, transferring, and investing in foreign currency, foreign security, and immovable property abroad.
  • Current Account Transactions: The act gives the Central Government the power to impose reasonable restrictions for current account transactions as prescribed, in the public interest.
  • Capital Account Transactions: It regulates capital account transactions and gives the Central Government the power to specify any class or classes of capital account transactions that are permissible.
  • Foreign Investment: It has specific provisions pertaining to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and portfolio investments, enabling more straightforward inbound and outbound investment.
  • Export and Import of Currency: It formalizes the legal framework for exporting and importing currency and currency notes.
  • Appropriate Permission: Any foreign exchange dealings through unauthorized people or in contravention of FEMA are liable for penalties under the Act.
  • Adjudication and Appeal: The enforcement and adjudication of penalties for contravention of the act are carried out by Directors of Enforcement appointed by the Indian Government. There are provisions for a two-tier structure for the appeals process.

The enactment of FEMA brought in a significant change in the way foreign exchange transactions were dealt with in India, moving from a regime that controlled foreign exchange to a regime that managed it. Its primary focus is the conservation and proper utilization of the foreign exchange resources of the country. The shift to a more facilitative regime was an important milestone in the process of India’s economic liberalization and the act continues to play a critical role in the country’s foreign trade and investment sectors.

Legal Provisions for Anticipatory Bail in FEMA Cases

The provision for anticipatory bail in the context of FEMA cases arises out of the need to address the civil nature of offenses under this act. The concept of anticipatory bail is essentially a pre-arrest legal process, where an individual seeks to avoid arrest by applying for bail in anticipation of being accused of an offense. It is pertinent to note that the very framework of FEMA, focusing on civil liabilities rather than on criminal sanctions, dictates the handling of violations in a non-custodial manner.

As per the legal standpoint under FEMA, there is no explicit provision for anticipatory bail since the act does not detail criminal offenses calling for arrest. However, the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India allow for protection against arbitrary arrest, thereby indirectly supporting the case for anticipatory bail in exceptional scenarios where coercive measures might be taken by authorities. It is in this indirect manner that the judiciary can entertain applications for anticipatory bail in the context of FEMA.

Despite the civil nature of the offenses, it is conceivable for situations to arise during the course of investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) where an individual might apprehend arrest. In such instances, courts have occasionally exercised their discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail, taking into consideration various factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of the accused to cooperate with the investigation.

The ED possesses the power to arrest a person for FEMA contraventions under Section 19 of the Act if there is reason to believe that the individual may be guilty of an offense punishable under FEMA. However, the process of arrest and prosecution must adhere to the conditions laid out in the Act and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, hence providing a scope for securing anticipatory bail under the premise of constitutional safeguards against arrest.

When it comes to the jurisprudential justification for anticipatory bail in FEMA cases, the courts have acknowledged the legislative intent to tread lightly on the punitive aspects, emphasizing the redressal of the contraventions through penalties and compounding procedures. Thus, if a person apprehends an action from the enforcement authorities which is disproportionate or inconsistent with the nature of the provisions of FEMA, they may approach the High Court seeking relief through anticipatory bail on the grounds of protecting their personal liberty as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution.

It is also observed that while adjudicating on matters related to anticipatory bail under FEMA, discretion is exercised judiciously, as the legal framework primarily encourages compliance-based resolution of contraventions, and not custodial interrogation. In summary, the anticipatory bail mechanism operates within a narrow sphere under FEMA, wherein its applicability is determined case by case, rather than being a plainly available remedy.

Judgements by Punjab and Haryana High Court Relating to Anticipatory Bail under FEMA

In the realm of legal decisions involving anticipatory bail under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has contributed several landmark judgments that illuminate the complex interplay between individual liberties and the imperative of enforcing economic regulations. These judgments often delve deep into the interpretation of FEMA provisions and the wider constitutional protections available to individuals.

A pivotal judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscored the principle of personal liberty and the requirement for the enforcement agency to respect due process. The judgment stated that even though FEMA is primarily a civil law, dealing with the offense in a non-custodial manner, the potential for misuse of power or arbitrary action by the authorities necessitates judicial scrutiny through the provision of anticipatory bail.

Another distinct judgment dealt with the peculiar scenario where the applicability of criminal provisions under other laws could intersect with FEMA violations. The High Court held that when such an intersection occurs, the provisions for seeking anticipatory bail cannot be denied outright based on the civil nature of FEMA offenses alone. Rather, the court emphasized examining the facts and circumstances of each individual case to determine the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail.

In a judgment involving an individual facing allegations of FEMA contraventions, the High Court remarked, “The enforcement of economic laws should not lead to the creation of an atmosphere of fear and harassment among the business community.” The statement underscores the court’s awareness of the economic ramifications of draconian enforcement actions.

Some key themes emerge from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the context of anticipatory bail for FEMA cases:

  • The importance of balance between enforcement of economic laws and the protection of individual rights.
  • The recognition of the non-custodial nature of FEMA and the consideration it should be given in bail matters.
  • The courts’ willingness to intervene when there is an apprehension of arbitrary or disproportionate action by the enforcement authorities.
  • And lastly, the case-specific approach adopted by the judiciary, where each bail application is decided on its own merits rather than a broad-brushed policy.

These judicial decisions serve to provide a nuanced view of how anticipatory bail is treated within the framework of FEMA, recognizing that while the act aims to regulate rather than criminalize, there may still be instances where constitutional guarantees necessitate the courts’ interference to uphold personal liberty and prevent potential abuse of power.


List of Most Recommended Lawyers:


1. Advocate Aisha Khanna
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

2. Advocate Yuvraj Bhatia
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

3. Advocate Krish Mehra
  • Experience: more than 35 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

4. Advocate Kabir Gupta
  • Experience: more than 40 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

5. Advocate Kiara Malhotra
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

6. Advocate Virat Mathur
  • Experience: more than 50 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

7. Advocate Kabir Mehra
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

8. Advocate Kiaan Mehta
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

9. Advocate Avni Chawla
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

10. Advocate Arya Singh
  • Experience: more than 45 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer