Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied On Mere Assertion Of State That Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Is Required: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can't be denied merely because the custody of the accused is required by the State for custodial interrogation. “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...
Recently, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can't be denied merely because the custody of the accused is required by the State for custodial interrogation.
“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.”, the Bench Comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed.
The Supreme Court observed the State cannot oppose the bail plea citing the requirement of custodial interrogation unless the State proves that why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for investigation.
Further, the court also clarified that just because the custodial interrogation isn't required it wouldn't preclude the court from denying the anticipatory bail to the accused.
“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.”, the court said.
After the Trial Court and High Court denied the anticipatory to the accused/appellant, he preferred a plea before the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the offences committed 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.
After noting that the accused has joined the investigation and his statements have been recorded, the Supreme Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
“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.”, the court stated.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 223