Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARSH SAWHNEY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1978
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1016 1978 SCR (3) 129
1978 SCC (2) 365
ACT:
Bail, grant of--Bail cannot be refused on the ground that
judicial custody is necessary for the purposes of search of
premises or interrogation of the accused by the police, as
required under the Crl. Procedure Code--Criminal Procedure
Code, (Act II of 1974) 1973, Ss. 437 and 439.
HEADNOTE:
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody
for purposes of search of premises in his presence or for
the purposes of interrogation in connection with
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] 3 2 S.C.R. 358 satisfied.
[129 G-H]
The Court directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail with
two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each and with a direction that
she should appear for interrogation by the police whenever
reasonably required, subject to her right under Article
20(3) of the Constitution.
Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1978] 1
SCR=A.I.R. 1978 SC 179, Applied.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 110 of
1978.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
13th January, 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Mics. (Main)
No. 767 of 1977).
V.M. Tarkunde, R. S. Malhotra, Navin Anand and S. K. Bisaria
for the appellant.
M. M. Punchhi 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 granted The principles
bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been
explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(Delhi Admn.) On the basis of that decision this is clearly
a case where the appellant is entitled to bail. Two grounds
have been mentioned on behalf of the State, namely, the
appellant’s presence is necessary for making a search and
recovery of certain documents. We do not think that the
appellant has to be taken into custody for making a search
of premises in her presence. This can be done without her
being taken into custody. The other
(1) [1782] S.C.R.358.
130
ground that is put forward is the appellant’s presence is
required by the police for interrogation in connection with
investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall
appear for interrogation 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 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 appearing 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 Magistrate, Delhi. This bail order will govern the
case registered as Crime F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977 in Police
Station (West), district Chandigarh and any offence arising
out of it.
We further direct that the appellant shall not leave India
without prior permission of this Court.
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
131