2021 (10) TMI 1 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - misconception and misunderstanding of Section 170, Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The circumstances under which the impugned order was passed and thereafter the Appellant approached this Court was noticed in the order dated 28.07.2021. What was stated was that as per the SOP in these difficult times, the Appellant was supposed to join virtually and when he sought to enter appearance, his request was declined by order dated 09.06.2021 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Bhubaneshwar predicated on the reasoning that he had not remained physically present. It is this order which had been upheld by the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021. We thus protected the Appellant against arrest with the direction to continue to attend the trial Court proceedings virtually in the then prevalent scenario and as and when physical Courts start working, the proceedings would be attended physically. The general principles Under Section 170 Code of Criminal Procedure, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an Accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the Accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this. The given factual scenario completely fits the aforesaid as the Appellant was never taken into custody during investigation. Suffice to say that it would be a fit case for the trial Court to grant bail to the Appellant on the next date on terms and conditions to its satisfaction - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Misinterpretation of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Custodial interrogation necessity, Non-bailable warrants issuance, Virtual court proceedings, Public prosecutor's conduct, Bail application requirements, High Court judgments applicability, Magistrate's powers under Section 170, Bail entitlement in non-bailable offenses.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a case revolving around a misunderstanding of Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant had joined an investigation related to an FIR without the need for custodial interrogation, as confirmed by the charge sheet filing. The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was granted for 8 weeks to apply for regular bail before the trial court. However, a special Chief Judicial Magistrate later issued non-bailable warrants against the appellant for economic offenses, leading to further legal proceedings.

The appellant faced issues with virtual court appearances, as initially declined by the magistrate due to physical absence. The Supreme Court intervened, directing the appellant to attend court proceedings virtually until physical hearings resumed. Despite this, the public prosecutor's conduct was criticized for inappropriate submissions, suggesting the appellant's arrest despite court orders. The court emphasized the importance of fair and accurate representation by the prosecution.

The judgment highlighted the significance of Section 170 of the CrPC, referencing a recent case to clarify its interpretation. It emphasized that an accused not arrested during investigation or custody should be granted bail in non-bailable offenses. The court stressed that sudden arrest after charge sheet filing, without prior custody, goes against bail principles. The appellant's case was deemed fit for bail by the trial court, with continued interim protection until a final decision.

The court recommended circulating relevant judgments to prevent similar issues in the future and allowed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment serves as a guide for magistrates to follow proper procedures under Section 170 and ensure bail entitlement in appropriate cases, emphasizing the need for fair and lawful conduct in legal proceedings.