LexSTATE REP. BY C.B.I. versus ANILSHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
STATE REP. BY C.B.I.
A
v.
ANILSHARMA
~EPTEMBER 3, 1997
B
(M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 436-Anticipatory bail in a case
of allegations of conuption-lf the suspected person is aware that he is well
protected by pre-amst bail order, intmogation may not succeed in getting C
valuable inf onnation which is otherwise likely to be obtained-considerations
for grant of anticipatory bail need not be the same as that for grant of bail
after a"est.
Prevention of Conuption Act, 198~Section 13(2).
The respondent who was an MP, a former minister and the son of a
Union Minister was granted anticipatory bail by the High Conrt nnder
Section 438 of the CrPC in a case·for an offence under Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The C.B.I. appealed against the said order
to this Court.
Allowing the Appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The High Court has mis-directed itself in exercising the
discretionary power under Section 438 of the Code by granting a pre-arrest
D
E
bail order to the respondent. High Court has approached the issue as F
though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest.
The Single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that
"it is well-settled that bail and not jail is a normal Rule". Consideration
· which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for an-
ticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail G
after arrest. At any rate the Single Judge ought not have side-stepped the
~
apprehension expressed by the CBI (that respondent would influence the
witnesses) as one which can be made against all accused persons in all
cases. The apprehension was quite reasonable when considering the high
position which respondent heid and in the nature of accusation relating to
a period during which he held such office. [740-C, E-F]
H
737
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
2. Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented
than questioning a suspect who is well ensconed with a favourable order
under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of
suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success
B in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that be
is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time
he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would
reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is
fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree
methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
C by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that
responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a rl:sponsible
manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterrring offences
would not conduct themselves as offenders. (739-G-H, 740-A-B]
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
811of1997.
'
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.11.96 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Cr!. M.P. No. 1217 of 1996.
E
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, (Pallav Shishodia) for P.
Parmeswaran, for the appellant.
F
R.K. Jain, Vijay Bahuguna, Anis Suhrawardy, Rajesh Kumar, Ms.
Shamana Anis, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for
short) assailing the pre-arrest order granted by the High Court of
G Himachal Pradesh in favour of the respondent under section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent was a former Minister of the
Himachal Pradesh State Government and he held the office for about three
years. Besides that, he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of that
State also. His father, (Sukhram) was Union Minister for Telecommunica-
tions. CBI has been investigating a case against respondent for offence
H under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the
STATE REP. BYC.B.I. v. ANILSHARMA[THOMAS,J.]
739
allegation that respondent had amassed wealth far in excess of his known A
sources of income. While the investigation was in progress respondent
approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for an order of an-
ticipatory bail. Over-ruling all the objections raised by the CBI, aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.