http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ER. K.K. JERATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/03/1998

BENCH: K. T. THOMAS, S. RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S. Rajendra, Babu. J.      The petitioner  filed a  petition under  Section 438 of the Criminal  Procedure Code  for grant of bail apprehending his arrest.  The High  Court which  had granted  an  interim relief earlier  on the  said petition,  dismissed  the  same subsequently.  Hence  this  petition  challenging  the  said order.      A search  had  been  conducted  at  the  house  of  the petitioner  on   20th  November,  1997  by  the  Income  Tax department and  certain amount  of cash,  gold ornaments and silver-ware were  found. It  appears that  investigation had been commenced  on the  basis of  certain information by the CBI. The  Union Territory  of Chandigarh  took note  of  the facts having  found from  the material  available  with  the authorities in  the shape  of certain  statements of account and  other   information  desired  to  proceed  against  the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(a) (b)(c)(d) sub-Section (2) of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1988. The High Court noticed that the scope of the two investigation shone by the CBI and  the other  by the Administration of Union Territory being different there is no bar for the latter to register a separate FIR   and  investigate the matter and on that basis rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there cannot be two parallel investigations on the same set of  facts by  two different agencies. It  was also taken note of  by the  High Court that investigation agency should be given  free hand to interrogate the petitioner and on the other hand  if he is released on bail, his acts might impede the investigation  even  resulting  in  tampering  with  the prosecution evidence  directly or indirectly. The High Court is also  of the  view that the assurance that the petitioner would  cooperate   with  the  investigating  agency  in  the interrogation would be a matter of mere ritual and custodial interposition would be more appropriate in such a matter.      Shri  R.K.   Jain,  learned   senior  counsel  for  the petitioner relying  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in Joginder Kumar  vs. State  of U.P.  & Ors. 1994(4) SCC. 260, Shri Gurbaksh  Singh Sibbia  & Ors. vs. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 565. Nandini Satpathy vs.  P.L. Dani & Anr. 1978 (2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

SCC 424,  and Babu Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P.  1978. (1) SCC 579,  submitted that the matter will have to be examined from the  constitutional angle  bearing in mind the scope of Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution. He contended that though an  accused person  could be  arrested, it may not be appropriate to  detain him in custody in every case and when there is  presumption of  innocence in  his favour until the charge against  him is  established, it  would not  at ll be consistent with the philosophy of the Constitution that such a person should be subjected to interrogation by application of psychological  or ambient  pressures much  less  physical torture. And he very vehemently stressed that this Court has a duty  to protect  a citizen  against such inroads of these fundamental right.  He relied  upon the  decisions in  : (i) 1994 (4)  SCC 260  (ii) 1980  (2) SCC 565 (iii) 1978 (2) SCC 424 and  (iv) 1978  (1) SCC  579 to  contend that  in law an accused  person  could  be  arrested  and  if  arrested,  is entitled to  bail  unless  detention  in  needed  in  public interest.      Shri Arun  Jaitley and  Sri Gopal  Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocates  for the respondents, brought to our notice that there  were several special features in this case which clearly indicate  that retaining  the petitioner  in custody till the  investigation is  over is absolutely necessary and is in  public interest,  which far outweight the interest of the petitioner.      We don  not wish  to enter into any detailed discussion on these legal aspects raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as  this Court  in the several decision referred to by  the learned  counsel for the petitioner has explained the scope  of the provisions of Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution  and  Section  486  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure and their inter-relationship. We may only state in considering a  petition for  grant of  bail  necessarily  if public interest requires detention of citizen in custody for purposes of  investigation could  be considered and rejected as otherwise  there could  be hurdles  in the  investigation even resulting  in tempering  of evidence.  This very aspect has been  borne in mind by the High Court . On the facts and in the  circumstances of  the case, we do not think there is any god  reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court in refusing bail at this state of the proceedings. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.