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