1. Cheating in land-related transactions — Application for pre-arrest bail. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Sunita Devi and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2155-2156 of 2022 SLP (Criminal) Nos. 7323-7324 of 2021
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-arrest bail can be granted where alleged offence is not grave in nature and accused has joined investigation.
Pre-arrest bail can be granted where alleged offence is not grave in nature and accused has joined investigation.
Subject
Bail - Anticipatory Bail
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre-arrest bail – Refusal by High Court – Offences alleged against appellants primarily relate to cheating in connection with certain land related transactions – In the event appellants cooperate with Investigating Agency, custodial interrogation would not be necessary at this stage – Judgment of High Court refusing pre-arrest bail to appellants and subsequent order passed declining appellants’ plea for recalling order of dismissal of their petition for anticipatory bail set aside – Appellants have joined investigation and at this stage, there is no allegation as regards their participation in investigation – Pre-arrest bail granted – In the event appellants refuse to cooperate with investigating agency at any subsequent stage, it shall be open to State to apply for cancellation of bail before Trial Court. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Harish Goyal, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick.
For the Respondents: Anil Kaushik, Rajat Rana, Anju Kaushik, Samar Vijay Singh, Amrita Verma.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Harish Goyal, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick.
For the Respondents: Anil Kaushik, Rajat Rana, Anju Kaushik, Samar Vijay Singh, Amrita Verma.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants' submission regarding joining the investigation — State's non-dispute of the same. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary if the accused has joined the investigation and continues to cooperate with the investigating agency. (Para 5 , 8 )
4. Pre-arrest bail may be granted where the accused has joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary. (Para 5 , 8 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order refusing pre-arrest bail set aside — Appellants granted bail upon arrest. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
6. When is custodial interrogation considered unnecessary for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
Custodial interrogation is considered unnecessary when the accused has already joined the investigation and is willing to cooperate with the investigating agency. (Para 5 , 8 )
7. What is the effect of an accused's refusal to cooperate with the investigation after being granted bail?
If the accused refuses to cooperate with the investigating agency at any subsequent stage, the State is entitled to apply for the cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that both of them have joined investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the State also does not dispute this. The offences alleged against the appellants primarily relate to cheating in connection with certain land related transactions.
5. In such circumstances, in our opinion, in the event the appellants cooperate with the Investigating Agency, custodial interrogation would not be necessary at this stage.
6. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court refusing pre-arrest bail to the appellants and the subsequent order passed declining appellants’ plea for recalling the order of dismissal of their petition for anticipatory bail.
7. Let the appellants be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, on such terms the concerned court may consider fit and proper.
8. We are passing this order having regard to the fact that the appellants have joined the investigation and at this stage, there is no allegation as regards their participation in investigation.
9. In the event the appellants refuse to cooperate with the investigating agency at any subsequent stage, it shall be open to the State to apply for cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court.
10. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
