2015 (10) TMI 2765 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of anticipatory bail - allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released for rural development - offences punishable Under Sections 409 420 467 468 477A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) and Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - requirement of the custodial interrogation of the Appellants - HELD THAT - After considering the gravity of the offence circumstances of the case particularly the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released for rural development and further considering the conduct of the Appellants and the fact that the investigation is held up as the custodial interrogation of the Appellants could not be done due to the anticipatory bail we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the Appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge Jalgaon. We decline to interfere with the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail passed by the High Court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge in a corruption case involving misappropriation of public funds.

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals against the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge in a corruption case. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench Aurangabad, canceled the anticipatory bail granted to the Appellants in connection with Criminal Application Nos. 4526, 4527, 4528, and 4529 of 2013. The offenses were punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved serious allegations of misappropriation of public funds by the Appellants, who were Executive Engineer and Sectional Engineer in the Rural Water Supply Department of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.

The High Court noted that the Appellants had initially been denied anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge but later obtained it through fresh applications. The State did not file any application for cancellation of bail, but it supported the complainant's application for cancellation. The State argued for the requirement of custodial interrogation of the Appellants to progress the investigation.

The Appellants argued that the High Court erred in canceling the anticipatory bail without sufficient reason, citing legal precedents. However, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation was justified considering the gravity of the offense, allegations of corruption, and misappropriation of public funds. The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, which was hindered by the anticipatory bail. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of investigation and prevention of harassment in granting anticipatory bail.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision to cancel the anticipatory bail, dismissing all four appeals. The judgment underscores the discretionary power of the courts in granting or canceling anticipatory bail based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, especially in matters involving serious allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds.