This criminal petition challenged an order allowing interrogation of an accused in judicial custody after non-bailable charges were added post-bail. The court dismissed the petition, relying on Prahlad Singh Bhati, holding principles applicable even when bail was initially granted in a bailable case.
The criminal petition file No.46 of 2017 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL PETN No.46 of 2017
B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI Present :
For the petitioner : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. S. Sarkar, Public Prosecutor.
24.07.2017
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 05-06-2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in SDI P/S Case No.2017 SDI 039 U/s 326/307/302/354(D)/506 of IPC allowing the I.O. of the case to interrogate the accused in the judicial custody.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the accused was already released on bail in a bailable offence, he cannot be permitted to be interrogated in a judicial custody even if non-bailable offences are subsequently added to the original charges without first canceling the bail bonds. In other words, according to the learned counsel, once a person is released on bail even in a bailable offence, he cannot be subjected to judicial or police custody until and unless the bail bonds executed by him is cancelled first in accordance with the provisions of Section 437(5), CrPC. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court namely, Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. versus State of Gajarat, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3780 , State of Punjab versus Parveen Kumar, reported in 2004 STPL 17314 SC . It is also his contention that on merit or so, the basis on which Section 302 of IPC and others were added to the charges, has no foundation inasmuch as the genuineness of the dying declarations are highly suspect.
CRL PETN No.46 of 2017
Page 1 of 2
On the other hand, Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in setting aside the impugned order. It is his contention that what the learned Magistrate had done was in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati versus NCT, Delhi and Another, (2001) 4 SCC 280 .
On careful reading of the Prahlad Singh Bhati case ( supra ), I am of the opinion that the principles laid down in paragraph 9 of that decision, though rendered in the context of bail granted under Section 438 of CrPC, will also be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case even though the accused in this case was granted bail in a bailable case.
Consequently, there is no merit in this criminal petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Dipesh
CRL PETN No.46 of 2017
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused released on bail in a bailable offence can be interrogated in judicial custody after non-bailable charges are added without canceling bail bonds.
Whether the principles in Prahlad Singh Bhati regarding anticipatory bail apply when bail is granted in a bailable case.
Whether there is merit in quashing the order allowing interrogation of the accused in judicial custody.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. versus State of GajaratReferred¶8
2009 AIR SCW 3780 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab versus Parveen KumarReferred¶8
2004 STPL 17314 SC
Prahlad Singh Bhati versus NCT, Delhi and AnotherDistinguished¶12
(2001) 4 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Tripura
T. Vaiphei
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
