2017 (10) TMI 1478 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - misappropriation of food-grains meant for public distribution - Offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - HELD THAT - In case there is no cooperation on the part of the appellant for the completion of the investigation, it will be open to the respondent to approach the Sessions Court, Gondia, Maharashtra in which case the Sessions Court having regard to the materials already collected by the IO, if so satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is still required for completion of the investigation, will be free to pass appropriate orders. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant accused in a criminal case involving misappropriation of food-grains meant for public distribution.
2. Allegations of lack of cooperation by the appellant during the investigation process.
3. Interpretation of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution in the context of custodial interrogation and cooperation with the investigation.
4. Decision on the jurisdiction and authority to decide on custodial interrogation based on cooperation during investigation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, accused in a case involving misappropriation of food-grains, sought anticipatory bail after the rejection of his application by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court initially granted interim protection upon the deposit of the misappropriated amount. However, due to alleged lack of cooperation with the investigation, the Court modified the order to allow the Investigating Officer to arrest the appellant. The appellant was directed to cooperate with the investigation, and the State was instructed to file a status report on the cooperation within two weeks.

2. The Investigating Officer reported that the appellant was arrested and released on bail but was not cooperating satisfactorily during the inquiry. The IO believed that custodial interrogation was necessary for the completion of the investigation, especially to record the appellant's statement in line with the co-accused's statements. The appellant's repeated denial of purchasing the food-grains was seen as lack of cooperation, prompting the IO to assert that the appellant was not entitled to anticipatory bail if cooperation was absent.

3. The judgment delved into the interpretation of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It emphasized that this right is crucial in criminal proceedings to prevent coercion and torture by investigating authorities. The Court highlighted that lack of confession does not necessarily equate to non-cooperation, as the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental safeguard. It was clarified that non-cooperation could lead to cancellation of bail, but mere absence of confession does not indicate lack of cooperation.

4. Considering the circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to leave the issue of custodial interrogation and cooperation during the investigation to the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Gondia. The Sessions Court was empowered to assess the necessity of custodial interrogation based on the materials collected by the Investigating Officer. If the appellant continued to show non-cooperation, the respondent could approach the Sessions Court for appropriate orders regarding custodial interrogation. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.