2002 (10) TMI 811 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Allegations of false implication and political rivalry.
2. Registration and investigation of the F.I.R. against the appellants.
3. Grant and subsequent cancellation of anticipatory bail.
4. Judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail.
5. High Court's jurisdiction and procedural aspects in modifying or recalling orders.
6. Requirement of custodial interrogation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of False Implication and Political Rivalry:

The appellant No. 1 claimed that he was falsely implicated in the murder case due to political rivalry. He contested the Haryana State Assembly elections against the wishes of a prominent political figure, leading to demands for money and subsequent threats. The appellant alleged that the police, under political pressure, attempted to implicate him in the F.I.R. No. 17/99 dated 24.1.1999, registered under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The appellant highlighted his dedication to social and educational development, asserting that the allegations were intended to mar his reputation and hinder his developmental activities.

2. Registration and Investigation of the F.I.R. Against the Appellants:

An F.I.R. was registered stating that Baba Azad Nath was murdered on 24.1.1999. The police, allegedly under political influence, implicated the appellant No. 1 based on a disclosure statement made by a hardened criminal, Kishan, who later was found innocent and discharged. Despite the appellant's cooperation during the investigation, the police made another attempt to implicate him with the help of another criminal, Manjit Singh. The appellant repeatedly offered to join the investigation, and the police's refusal to provide security despite threats further complicated the matter.

3. Grant and Subsequent Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail:

The appellants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which was initially granted by the Addl. Sessions Court, Rewari, on 9.4.2001 and confirmed on 5.6.2001. The State filed for cancellation of the bail under Section 439(2) R/w Section 482 Cr.P.C., which the High Court partially allowed on 21.12.2001, setting aside the order dated 9.4.2001 but not addressing the order dated 5.6.2001. The High Court later clarified on 22.2.2002 that the intention was to cancel the order dated 5.6.2001 as well, leading to the present appeals.

4. Judicial Discretion in Granting Anticipatory Bail:

The Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, granted anticipatory bail after detailed consideration of the facts and rival contentions. The Judge noted that the appellants joined the investigation whenever required and found no misuse of bail. The judicial discretion exercised was based on relevant considerations and supported by reasons. The High Court's cancellation of bail was deemed erroneous as it failed to objectively consider the facts and circumstances and did not provide substantial reasons for finding the judicial discretion erroneous.

5. High Court's Jurisdiction and Procedural Aspects in Modifying or Recalling Orders:

The High Court's order dated 21.12.2001 and subsequent clarification on 22.2.2002 were challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and procedural impropriety. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into whether the High Court could pass an order of clarification or modification under Section 362 Cr.P.C. or recall an order passed by a coordinate bench. Instead, the focus was on whether the anticipatory bail granted could be sustained, given the factual backdrop and judicial discretion exercised.

6. Requirement of Custodial Interrogation:

The State argued that custodial interrogation of the appellants was necessary for further investigation, particularly under Section 120-B IPC. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants had already been rigorously interrogated and found innocent. The High Court's failure to consider this aspect and the facts objectively led to the conclusion that the anticipatory bail granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge was justified and should not have been canceled.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders canceling the anticipatory bail and restored the order dated 5.6.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari. The judicial discretion exercised in granting anticipatory bail was upheld as neither perverse nor erroneous, and the appeals were allowed accordingly. The observations made during the bail proceedings were clarified as not prejudicial to the prosecution or defense in the trial.