Supreme Court of India
HARSH SAWHNEY versus UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.) on 20 February 1978
A
HARSH SAWHNEY
v.
UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)
February 20, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JASWANT SINGH & R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
B
Bail, grant of-Bail cannot be refused on. the gro_und that judicial custody is nc.>cessary ]or the purposes of search of prefn1ses or 1nterrogat10.n ?f the accuse_d by the police, as required under the Crl. Procedure Code-Criminal Procedu1e Cmle, (Act II of 1974) 1973, Ss. 437 and 439.
Allowing the appe~l, the Court
c
I-IELD : An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for pUrPC¥ies of search of premises in his presence or for the purposes of interrog~tion in con· nection \Vith investigation of the case so long as the principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail on the lines indicated in Gurcharan Singh's case, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358 satisfied. [129 G-H]
[The Court directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail with tw9 sureties. of Rs. 5000/- each and with a direction that she should appear for interrogat}Oil by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution].
D
Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1978] 1 SCR=A.l.R. 1978 SC 179, Applied.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1978.
E
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13th January, 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Mies. (Main) No. 767 of 1977).
V. M. Tarkwuie, R. S. Malhotra, Navi11 A11and a11d S. K. Bisaria for the appellant.
F
M. M. Pwtchhi and P. C. Bhartari for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel on both sides. We are satisfied that this is a case where on the facts now placed before us bail should be grante( The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh & Ors. G vs. State (Delhi Admn.)I. On the basis of that decision this is clearly a case where the appellanf is entitled to bail. Two grounds have bee~ mentioned on beha_lf of the Stute, namely, the appellant's presence 1s necessary for ma~mg a search and recovery of certain docum~nts. We di<J not t~mk that the appellant has to be tak.en mto custody tor makmg a search of premises in her presen~e. This can be done without her being taken into custody. The other H
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) [l 782] S.C.R.358.
A
ground that is put forward is the appelfant's presence is required by the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogatioii by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
We allow the appeal and direct the appellant to be enlarged on bail a on condition that she, with two sureties, will enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and she will subject herself to condition for appear-ing before the Police for interrogation if called upon to do so subject to the condition under Article 20(3). The bond of the appellant and of the sureties will be to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Mai;is-trate, Delhi. This bail order will govern the case registered as Cnme F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977 in Police Station (West). district Chandigarh C and any offence arising out of it.
We further direc.t that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.
S.R.
Appeal a/lowed.
'
I
r'