2001 (5) TMI 986 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest without a warrant.
2. Justification for the refusal of bail by the Sessions Judge.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's guidelines on arrest.
4. Consideration of the applicant's potential to tamper with evidence.
5. Conduct of the Sessions Court in reserving the bail order.
6. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Arrest Without a Warrant:
The applicant was arrested on 28th April 2001 around 11.30 p.m. during an ongoing investigation, not pursuant to a court-issued warrant. The applicant's arrest was challenged on the grounds that no principal offender had been booked, questioning the justification for arresting the applicant solely for abetment. The Court noted, "no offence of abetment could be proceeded against the applicant unless the principal offender was booked."

2. Justification for the Refusal of Bail by the Sessions Judge:
The Sessions Judge rejected the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of corruption and bribery, equating it to a crime against society. The judgment stated, "Corruption, bribery, horse trading have become the order of the day corroding the fabric of society." However, the High Court criticized this approach, stating that the Sessions Court was "more influenced by morality than law," and emphasized that the legislative intent should guide the seriousness of the offense.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Guidelines on Arrest:
The applicant's counsel referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., highlighting that "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so." The Court observed that the investigating agency had exceeded its authority, noting that "Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter."

4. Consideration of the Applicant's Potential to Tamper with Evidence:
The prosecution argued that releasing the applicant could lead to tampering with evidence. However, the Court found this apprehension "totally misplaced," stating that "the crucial evidence is that of the complainant himself." The Court emphasized that any attempt to pressure the complainant could be grounds for bail cancellation but should not preclude bail initially.

5. Conduct of the Sessions Court in Reserving the Bail Order:
The applicant's counsel criticized the Sessions Court for delaying the bail order, arguing it was inappropriate given the liberty involved. The High Court agreed, stating, "the approach of the Sessions Court obviously is inappropriate," especially since the offense was under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The High Court decided to grant bail, imposing strict conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the investigation. The conditions included:
- Furnishing a security of Rs. 10,000 and a personal bond of the same amount.
- Not entering Sanvordem Constituency without prior permission.
- Reporting to the Investigating Officer daily between 5.00 to 8.00 p.m. for seven days.
- Not leaving the jurisdiction without prior intimation and permission.
- Not making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Not committing a similar offense.

Conclusion:
The applicant was directed to be released on bail forthwith, subject to the aforementioned conditions, highlighting the Court's emphasis on legal principles over moral perceptions in bail considerations.