SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 10-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] lOS.C.R. 129 
SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Crimina!Appea!No. 1759of2017) 
A 
OCTOBER 10, 2017 
B 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Bail: Anticipatory bail - Entitlement - Allegation against 
appellant that he received misappropriated food grains meant for 
public distribution - Appellant seeking anticipatory bail - Rejection 
C 
by the courts below - Before this Court, Investigating Officer of the 
opinion that custody of the appellant ivas required for recording 
his confessional statement in terms of what co-accused had already 
stated; and that he was not co-operating because he kept 011 
reiterating that he had not purchased the food-grains - Held: 
Purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of D 
confession - Right against self-incrimination is provided for in 
Article 20(3) of the Constitution - Merely because the appellant 
did not confess, it cannot be said that the appellant was not co-
operating with the investigation - However, in case, there is no co-
operation on the part of the appellant for the completion of the 
E 
investigation, it would be open to the State to seek for cancellation 
of bail - Constitution of India - Article 20(3). 
Selvi and Ors. v. State of Kamataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 : 
[2010] 5 SCR 381 -
referred to. 
[2010] 5 SCR 381 
Case Law Reference 
referred· to 
Para 7 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No~ 1759 of 2017 
F 
From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 24.10.2016 
G 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur 
in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 672 of 2016. 
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Advs. 
for the Appellant 
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent. 
H 
129 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. The appellant is one of the accused in Crime No. 63 of 2016 
registered at Goregaon Police Station, Goregaon, Maharashtra for 
offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 
Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegation 
is that he received misappropriated food-grains meant for public 
distribution. In the order dated 07.10.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Gondia rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, as per order dated 24.10.2016 
was also of the same view, although the same court had initially granted 
interim protection. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 
3. On 07.11.2016, this Court passed the following Order: 
"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment, 
so as to enable him to obtain instructions, whether or not the 
petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the total amount of 
Rs.45,08,469/- for the misappropriated grains, referred to in the 
first information report. 
At request, and in the interest of justice, post for hearing on 
I 1.11.2016. 
Instructions be obtained, in the meantime." 
4. The amount was deposited. Accordingly, the Court granted 
interim protection by order dated 18.11.2016 staying the arrest. On the 
submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that the 
appellant was not cooperating with the investigation, this Court on 
24.08.2017, passed the following Order: 
"Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits 
that in view of the order dated 18.11.2016 there is no cooperation 
on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 18.11.2016 
regarding the stay of arrest of the petitioner is modified to the 
effect that the Investigating Officer is free to arrest the petitioner. 
However, after arrest he shall be released on bail on execution 
of a personal bond to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two 
Lacs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount. The petitioner 
is directed to cooperate with the investigation by responding to 
SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT v. THE STATE OF 
131 
MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J.] 
the call and attending the place wherever and whenever required 
A 
by the Investigating Officer. 
The respondent/State is directed to file a status report with 
regard to the cooperation extended by the petitioner within two 
weeks. 
Post on 12.09.2017." 
B 
5. The Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the IO") . 
has accordingly filed a Status Report dated 11.09 .2017, which reads as 
follo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.