Summary
The State appealed against the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS to an IPS officer accused of manipulating tenders and approving payments without verification. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had impermissibly discussed the evidence in detail and recorded findings that the ingredients of the offences were not made out, and had treated the absence of need for custodial interrogation as decisive; on an overall conspectus the facts did not warrant anticipatory bail. The order was set aside and the respondent given four weeks to surrender.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail after elaborately discussing the evidence and recording findings on whether the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
- Whether the absence of any need for custodial interrogation is by itself a ground to grant anticipatory bail.
- Whether interference with an order granting anticipatory bail implies that the accused must be arrested or taken into custody.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Section 482 empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct that a person apprehending arrest on a non-bailable accusation be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions. The Court held that this discretion must be exercised on the prima facie case, the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment, without detailed findings on the evidence, and that the High Court's exercise of it could not be sustained. (¶¶ 3, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Held
- Custodial interrogation is a last resort, to be adopted when investigation is impeded by deliberate non-cooperation or by factors militating against upholding the law or the public interest; but the consideration is not limited to whether the person is required for custodial interrogation. The larger issue is whether a person, however high the office he holds, is treated on an equal footing with a common citizen. (¶ 21)
- Interference with an order granting anticipatory bail does not automatically lead to a presumption that custody is required and that the person will be arrested; that is the discretion of the investigating agency, which must take an objective view on the need for custody based purely on material, without bias or extraneous considerations. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Courts have repeatedly cautioned against elaborately discussing or detailing the evidence, or rendering findings on it, when deciding whether to grant bail; the High Court nonetheless examined whether the ingredients of the offences were made out and held that they did not appear to be. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- It is a misconception that absence of a case for custodial interrogation is alone a good ground for anticipatory bail; custodial interrogation is only one relevant aspect, and the court must first consider the prima facie case, then the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment (Sumitha Pradeep; P. Krishna Mohan Reddy). (¶¶ 27, 28)
- On an overall conspectus at the prima facie stage, and refraining from detailed observations lest they prejudice either side, the facts and allegations were not such as to enable the grant of anticipatory bail; the appeal was allowed, the order set aside and the anticipatory bail quashed. The investigating agency must act in a non-partisan manner and conclude the investigation at the earliest, and nothing in the order bears on the merits. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Acceding to the request for time to surrender, the Court directed that if the respondent surrenders within four weeks and seeks bail, it shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the order; the prosecution may seek custody for interrogation before the trial court, and the State shall provide due medical care if the respondent is in custody. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 30.01.2025 set aside and the anticipatory bail quashed; respondent may surrender before the court concerned within four weeks, and any bail plea is to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by this order; prosecution free to seek custodial interrogation; State to ensure appropriate medical care if the respondent is in custody.