Summary
In the CBI investigation into the murder of Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, the Telangana High Court, on an application for anticipatory bail by a Member of Parliament named as a suspect, granted an ad interim stay of his arrest and directed that his examination by the CBI be in printed or written form with a questionnaire handed to him in advance. On the appeal of the deceased's daughter, the Supreme Court set aside the order, holding that such directions would stultify the investigation and were wholly unwarranted, that the High Court's observations on the strength of the evidence were premature, and it extended the time for completing the investigation to 30 June 2023.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, while an anticipatory bail application was still pending, was justified in granting an ad interim stay of arrest after recording prima facie observations on the evidence against the suspect.
- Whether the High Court could direct that a suspect's examination by the investigating agency be conducted in printed or written form and that the questionnaire be handed over to him.
Provisions considered
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The first respondent's application for anticipatory bail was pending before the High Court; the impugned interim directions were passed on an application for stay of arrest pending that application, and the Court clarified that its observations would not affect the High Court's evaluation of the bail plea. (¶¶ 2, 21, 22, 28, 32)
- Sections 160 and 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The CBI had summoned and examined the first respondent under these provisions; the High Court's direction that such examination be in written form with an advance questionnaire was held to gravely prejudice the investigation. (¶¶ 15, 17, 20, 29, 30)
- Sections 302, 120-B and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences charged in the CBI's chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, in which the first respondent and others were named as suspects in the conspiracy and in the destruction of evidence at the scene. (¶¶ 9, 12, 25)
Held
- The High Court's finding, at the stage of an interim application and before hearing the anticipatory bail plea, that there was no evidence against the first respondent beyond a co-accused's confession was premature, particularly in light of the CBI's affidavit describing his role, and the order was extraordinary and misapplied. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- There is no warrant for directing that the interrogation of a person suspected in a conspiracy be in printed or written form, and it is wholly inappropriate to direct that the questionnaire be handed over to him; such orders stultify and gravely prejudice the investigation, especially where the agency is still investigating the role of persons not yet chargesheeted. (¶¶ 29, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order dated 18 April 2023 set aside; the pending anticipatory bail application to be decided by the High Court uninfluenced by these observations; time for the CBI to complete the investigation extended to 30 June 2023.