Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail, Observes Practice of Remand to Custody Requires Examination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to the appellants and made observations regarding the practice of remanding accused persons to custody upon their appearance. The court emphasized that the practice needs to be examined in an appropriate case and stated "In some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court, and this is why they seek protection."

The case involved the appellants, who were accused in FIR No. RC 219 2019 E0006, which alleged offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants had approached the court challenging the rejection of their applications for anticipatory bail by the High Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not require custodial interrogation of the appellants during the investigation period. The accused had cooperated with the investigation, and all transactions under scrutiny were supported by documentary evidence. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the court found it difficult to accept the contention that custody of the appellants was necessary at this stage.

Furthermore, the court observed that the appellants' apprehension of arrest stemmed not from the CBI but from a practice followed by certain courts. It noted that in some parts of the country, accused persons are remanded to custody as soon as they appear in response to a summoning order. The court stressed the need to examine the correctness of such a practice in an appropriate case.

The bench, comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian, held that the appellants were entitled to be released on bail if remanded to custody by the Trial Court. The court directed the appellants to be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Special Court, including the surrender of passports, if any.

This judgment brings attention to the practice of remanding accused persons to custody, with the Supreme Court acknowledging the need for scrutiny in future cases. The ruling emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances and the requirement of custodial interrogation when deciding on anticipatory bail applications.

 

Date of Decision: March 20, 2023

MAHDOOM BAVA  VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION         

 

Latest Legal News