Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied On Mere Assertion Of State That Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Is Required

There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of

the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is

equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not

required that by itself may also not be a ground to release an

accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious

nature. However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while

opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. {Para 12}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9949/2023)

ASHOK KUMAR Vs STATE OF UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH 

Dated: MARCH 01, 2024.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant (original accused) and Mr. Kanu Agarwal, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union Territory of

Chandigarh.

3. A First Information Report bearing No. 05/2023 dated

15.06.2023 came to be registered with the Vigilance Police Station,

Chandigarh against the appellant and other co-accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 read with

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7-C of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The appellant apprehending arrest at the hands of the police

first prayed for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court

Chandigarh. The Sessions Court declined to grant anticipatory bail.

The appellant thereafter, went before the High Court and prayed for

anticipatory bail. The High Court also declined to grant

anticipatory bail.

5. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here

before this Court with the present appeal.

6. By our Order dated 25.08.2023, notice was issued and an

interim order was passed that the appellant shall not be arrested.

7. We are informed that after our Order dated 25.08.2023,

referred to above the appellant appeared before the Investigating

Officer for the purpose of interrogation and his statements have

been recorded. We are also informed that the specimen signatures/

hand-writings of the appellant has also been collected and sent to

the Forensic Science Laboratory.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

in such circumstances, the appellant may be ordered to be released

on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union Territory of

Chandigarh has vehemently opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.

He submitted that the appellant is the main accused and his

custodial interrogation is required.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

having gone through the materials on record, the only question that

falls for our consideration is whether we should exercise our

discretion in favour of the appellant and order his release on

anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the police?

10. The First Information Report originates from a departmental

inquiry initiated sometime in 2017. It took almost 6 years for the

police to register the FIR for the alleged offences. We do not say

for a moment that this by itself is sufficient to order the release

of the appellant on anticipatory bail.

11. One good ground which has persuaded us to exercise our

discretion in favour of the appellant is that the appellant has

already joined the investigation. He has cooperated in the

investigation so far.

12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of

the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is

equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not

required that by itself may also not be a ground to release an

accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious

nature. However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while

opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial

interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would

have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial

interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of

investigation.

13. The appellant has assured this Court that as and when required

to appear in future before the Investigating Officer, he would do

so and cooperate in the investigation.

14. Without observing anything further, we set aside the impugned

order passed by the High Court. We order that in the event of

arrest of the appellant by the police in connection with the F.I.R.

referred above, he shall be released on bail subject to terms and

conditions that the Investigating Officer may deem fit to impose.

15. The appeal stands disposed of, as above.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

........................,J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

........................,J.

(MANOJ MISRA)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 01, 2024.

Print Page