1998 (3) TMI 717 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Dismissal of the petition by the High Court.
3. Scope of investigations by CBI and Administration of Union Territory.
4. Constitutional angle regarding Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution.
5. Public interest vs. individual rights in granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to avoid arrest. The High Court initially granted interim relief but later dismissed the petition, leading to the current challenge against that decision.

2. Following a search at the petitioner's residence by the Income Tax Department, incriminating items were found, leading to investigations by the CBI and the Union Territory of Chandigarh under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court noted the different scopes of these investigations and rejected the argument against parallel investigations. Concerns were raised about potential interference in the investigation if the petitioner was granted bail.

3. The petitioner's counsel argued from a constitutional perspective, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the protection of fundamental rights during interrogation. Citing various legal precedents, the counsel contended that detention should be avoided unless necessary in the public interest.

4. The respondents' senior advocates highlighted the necessity of keeping the petitioner in custody for the ongoing investigation, emphasizing public interest over individual concerns.

5. The Supreme Court declined to delve deeply into the legal arguments presented, citing previous decisions that have clarified the constitutional provisions and the balance between public interest and individual rights in bail matters. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny bail, considering the potential risks to the investigation and evidence tampering if the petitioner was released. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed.