HARSH SAWHNEY
v.
UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)
February 20, 1978
129
A
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JASWANT SINGH & R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
B
Bail, grant of-Bail cannot be refused on. the gro_und that judicial custody is
nc.>cessary ]or the purposes of search of prefn1ses or 1nterrogat10.n ?f the accuse_d
by the police, as required under the Crl. Procedure Code-Criminal Procedu1e
Cmle, (Act II of 1974) 1973, Ss. 437 and 439.
Allowing the appe~l, the Court
I-IELD : An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for pUrPC¥ies
of search of premises in his presence or for the purposes of interrog~tion in con·
nection \Vith investigation of the case so long as the principles bearing on grant
or refusal of bail on the lines indicated in Gurcharan Singh's
case, [1978] 2
S.C.R. 358 satisfied. [129 G-H]
t
[The Court directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail with tw9 sureties. of
c
Rs. 5000/- each and with a direction that she should appear for interrogat}Oil
by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article
D
20(3) of the Constitution].
Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1978] 1 SCR=A.l.R. 1978
SC 179, Applied.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 110
of 1978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13th
January, 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Mies. (Main) No. 767 of
1977).
V. M. Tarkwuie, R. S. Malhotra, Navi11 A11and a11d S. K. Bisaria
for the appellant.
M. M. Pwtchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
E
F
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel on both sides. We are
satisfied that this is a case where on the facts now placed before us bail
should be grante(
The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail
have already been explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh & Ors.
G
vs. State (Delhi Admn.)I. On the basis of
that decision
this
is
clearly a case where the appellanf is entitled to bail.
Two grounds
have bee~ mentioned on beha_lf of the Stute, namely, the appellant's
presence 1s necessary for ma~mg a search and recovery of certain
docum~nts. We di<J not
t~mk that
the appellant has
to be
tak.en mto custody tor makmg a search of premises in her presen~e.
This can be done without her being taken into custody.
The other
H
(1) [l 782] S.C.R.358.
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R·
A
ground that is put forward is the appelfant's presence is required by
the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make
it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogatioii by the police
whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article 20(3)
of the Constitution.
We allow the appeal and direct the appellant to be enlarged on bail
a
on condition that she, with two sureties, will enter into a bond in a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- and she will subject herself to condition for appear-
ing before the Police for interrogation if called upon to do so subject
'
to the condition under Article 20(3). The bond of the appellant and
of the sureties will be to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Mai;is-
trate, Delhi.
This bail order will govern the case registered as Cnme
F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977 in Police Station (West). district Chandigarh
C
and any offence arising out of it.
We further direc.t that the appellant shall not leave India without
prior permission of this Court.
S.R.
Appeal a/lowed.
I
r'
Lex