2023 (4) TMI 1226 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of statutory/default bail - non-filing of the charge sheet/report within the prescribed period of 90 days - not permitting CBI for police interrogation - interim bail of the respondent-accused was cancelled on the ground that he did not appear before the Special Court despite specific directions and also did not cooperate with the CBI investigation - HELD THAT - The facts in the present case are very glaring. Despite the fact that on 16.04.2021, the learned Special Judge allowed police custody of the respondent-accused for seven days i.e., up to 22.04.2021, the respondent-accused got himself admitted in the hospital during the period of police custody, i.e., on 18.04.2021 and obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021 when his interim bail came to be cancelled by the learned Special Judge by observing that the accused has misused the liberty shown to him and during the interim bail he has not cooperated with the investigating agency. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that initial order of grant of seven days police custody attained finality. However, due to the aforesaid reasons of having got the accused himself hospitalised on 18.04.2021 and thereafter obtaining the interim bail on 21.04.2021, the CBI could not interrogate the accused in the police custody though having a valid order in its favour. Thus, the respondent-accused has successfully avoided the full operation of the order of police custody granted by the learned Special Judge. No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process. The appellant-CBI is permitted to have the police custody remand of the respondent for a period of four days - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order granting statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Validity of the CBI's request for police custody remand beyond the initial 15 days from the date of arrest.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the High Court's Order Granting Statutory/Default Bail
The Supreme Court examined the High Court of Calcutta's decision to release the respondent-accused on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The High Court had allowed the application for default bail on the grounds that the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed 90 days from the date of rearrest on 11.12.2021, and the charge sheet was only filed on 19.07.2022. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Judge had initially rejected the application for default bail, stating that the accused was not remanded to custody under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after the cancellation of his interim bail. The High Court's decision to grant default bail was contested by the CBI, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Validity of the CBI's Request for Police Custody Remand
The CBI argued that it should be allowed to complete the police custody remand of seven days initially granted on 16.04.2021, which was interrupted by the accused's hospitalization and subsequent interim bail. The CBI contended that the accused had frustrated the judicial process by getting hospitalized and evading interrogation. The respondent's counsel opposed this, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni and Budh Singh v. State of Punjab, which state that police custody cannot extend beyond the first 15 days from the date of arrest.

The Supreme Court considered the Special Judge's observations while canceling the interim bail, which highlighted the accused's non-cooperation and misuse of bail. The Court questioned the respondent's counsel on scenarios where police custody might be erroneously denied within the first 15 days and subsequently granted by a higher court, to which no satisfactory answer was provided.

The Court acknowledged the importance of custodial interrogation for the investigating agency and noted that the accused had successfully avoided full police custody through hospitalization and interim bail. The Court emphasized that no accused should be allowed to frustrate the judicial process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the CBI to have police custody remand of the respondent for four days, considering the previous incomplete period of interrogation. The Court underscored the necessity of custodial interrogation and the accused's deliberate evasion of the same. The appeal was thus allowed to the specified extent.