Sunil Kumar Alias Titu vs State Of Ut Of Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1187

YASHWANT VARMA, ASHA MENON
Sunil Kumar Alias Titu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ut Of Chandigarh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Malkit Singh Jandiala, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, APP, UT of Chandigar, for the Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court affirmed the authority of judicial officers to order a person to give a voice sample for investigative purposes, and upheld the legality of such orders under the relevant constitutional and procedural provisions (!) (!) .
The court clarified that compelling a person to provide a voice sample does not violate their fundamental rights, particularly under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, as long as the order is judicially issued and the process is lawful (!) .
The petitioner’s claim that his consent was not voluntary due to mental depression was rejected. The court noted that the petitioner had previously given a voluntary statement regarding his willingness to provide the voice sample, and that the order was based on judicial proceedings where the petitioner’s consent was obtained without coercion (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the orders to obtain voice samples were issued during ongoing investigations, and such orders are permissible and do not violate the right to privacy when issued by a competent judicial authority (!) .
The petitioner’s challenge to the orders was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court observing that the orders were neither erroneous nor resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also noted that the petitioner had opportunities to challenge the orders but failed to do so within the prescribed legal framework (!) .
The court reiterated that the authority to order voice samples extends beyond the initial investigation phase and that the process remains lawful even after charges are framed, provided the orders are judicially issued and comply with procedural safeguards (!) .
The court disposed of the petition, confirming that the petitioner must appear before the designated forensic laboratory to give his voice sample, and directed the relevant authorities to fix a date for compliance (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P.C.') by one of the accused persons in FIR No.194/2017, registered under Sections 409/420/120B IPC and Sections 8/9/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

2. The case relates to the leaking of the question paper set for 'Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination-2017'. The FIR has been registered on the directions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Special Investigating Team (for short, 'SIT') was also constituted for investigating into the case. The accused persons were arrested, and vide orders dated 12th October, 2018, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted interim bail to the accused, including the present petitioner. By means of various petitions, some of the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the matters from Chandigarh to Delhi. These petitions were allowed vide orders dated 5th February, 2021 and the cases were transferred to Delhi, where the trial is presently pending.

3. After the cases were transferred to Delhi, the petitioner sought directions from th