1997 (9) TMI 626 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the grant of a pre-arrest bail order by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a former Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government who was being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.

Grant of Pre-arrest Bail Order:
The respondent, a former Minister, was granted a pre-arrest bail order by a learned Single Judge of the High Court subject to certain conditions. The CBI objected to this order, arguing that custodial interrogation was crucial in cases of corruption in high places. The CBI contended that the High Court erred in granting the bail order considering the respondent's influential position and the potential hindrance to the investigation.

Arguments Presented:
The Additional Solicitor General representing the CBI argued against the pre-arrest bail order, emphasizing the importance of custodial interrogation in cases of corruption involving influential individuals. On the other hand, the senior Advocate representing the respondent defended the High Court's order, stating that it was passed within the court's discretionary power.

Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the Case-Diary file, found that custodial interrogation is more effective in eliciting information and materials in cases like this. The Court noted that the High Court approached the issue as if it were considering a regular bail application after arrest, rather than an application for anticipatory bail. The Court highlighted that the apprehension expressed by the CBI regarding witness influence was reasonable given the respondent's high position and the nature of the accusations against him.

Decision:
After careful consideration, including a review of the Case-Diary file, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had misdirected itself in granting the pre-arrest bail order under section 438 of the Code. As a result, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal by the CBI was allowed.