SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Grant of default bail – No accused can be permitted to play with investigation and/or Courts process – No accused can be permitted to frustrate judicial process by his conduct – It cannot be disputed that right of custodial interrogation/investigation is also a very important right in favour of investigating agency to unearth truth which accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate – By not permitting CBI to have police custody interrogation for remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to accused who has been successful in frustrating judicial process – Appeal allowed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1638/2022, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has directed to release the respondent-accused on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
CBI could interrogate the respondent-accused only for a period of two and half days and therefore could not exercise the right of interrogation for the full period of seven days of police custody remand.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1638/2022, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has directed to release the respondent-accused on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That on 27.11.2020, an FIR/complaint came to be registered by the CBI (ACB, Kolkata) against inter-alia the officials of Eastern Coalfield Limited, CISF, Railways and others for the commission of offences under sections 120B/409 of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That on 16.04.2021, the respondent- accused Vikas Mishra came to be arrested by the CBI and was remanded to the CBI custody for a period of seven days i.e. till 22.04.2021. However, during the said period of remand to CBI custody, the respondent-accused Vikas Mishra was admitted in the hospital and thus could not be interrogated by the CBI despite police custody remand.
2.1 That on 21.04.2021, the respondent-accused was enlarged on interim bail by the learned Special Court which came to be extended from time to time. On 08.12.2021, the learned Special Court cancelled the interim bail of the respondent-accused on the ground that he did not appear before the Special Court despite specific directions and also did not cooperate with the CBI investigation. That on 09.12.2021 and pursuant to the interim bail being cancelled, the respondent-accused came to be arrested again on 11.12.2021 and was remanded to judicial custody. That again from 12.12.2021 to 08.04.2022, while in judicial custody, the accused got admitted to the hospital and then again from 07.05.2022 to 08.09.2022.
2.2 That the accused submitted an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet/report within the prescribed period of 90 days. The learned Special Judge rejected the said application inter-alia on the ground that the accused was not remanded to custody under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after cancellation of his bail on the grounds that the accused was granted interim bail under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII Cr.P.C. and his detention pursuant to cancellation of bail was on the strength of warrants issued by the Court. That on 19.07.2022, the CBI filed a charge sheet against the accused and the cognizance was taken by the learned Special Court on the same date.
2.3 Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application submitted by the accused-Vikas Mishra for statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the respondent-accused preferred the present application before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said application and has directed to release the respondent on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as even within 90 days from the date of re-arrest, i.e. from 11.12.2021, the charge sheet was not filed and which came to be filed only on 19.07.2022. Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing to release the respondent-accused Vikas Mishra on statutory/default bail, the CBI has preferred the present appeal.
3. While issuing notice on 27.02.2023, this Court passed the following order:
“Issue notice to consider the prayer of the Investigating Agency to have the custodial interrogation of the accused, making it returnable on 13.03.2023.
Shri Rajat Sehgal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, who is on caveat. To be notified within first ten items.”
4. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the CBI has vehemently submitted that as such the CBI got the police custody remand for a period of seven days on 16.04.2021 till
No accused can be permitted to frustrate judicial process by his conduct.
The court emphasized the importance of balancing the requirements of investigation with the necessity for custodial interrogation, and highlighted the need for a responsible approach to custodial int....
The right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is contingent upon the completion of the investigation within the prescribed time frame, which is calculated from the date of judicial remand, no....
Default bail—Essential requisite for availing statutory bail is that accused must have undergone authorised period of detention ordered by Magistrate.
Custody undergone by the accused under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure counts towards default bail, regardless of any illegality in the order.
Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours - No power to extend period prescribed in Section 167 for completing investigation on any grounds, even in name of COVID-19 pande....
No exceptions can be made to the statutory provisions under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Police custody after the expiry of the initial 15 days is not permissible, a....
The period of house arrest does not constitute custody for the purposes of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it is declared illegal and unsustainable in law by a competent court.
The duty of the investigating agency to inform the court about unexecuted warrants, the need for compliance with statutory provisions, and the unjustifiability of the arrest and remand under the PMLA....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an accused is remanded to judicial custody, he cannot be sent back to police custody for the same investigation, and further interrogatio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.