Supreme Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail in Cheating Case: Sunita Devi vs. State of Haryana (2 December 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

When can a person accused of a crime be granted bail before they are even arrested? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of cheating related to land transactions. This case explores the circumstances under which pre-arrest bail, also known as anticipatory bail, can be granted. The court considered whether the appellants’ cooperation with the investigation warranted their release on bail before any formal arrest. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

The case involves allegations of cheating against Sunita Devi and another individual (referred to as “the appellants”) in connection with certain land-related transactions. The appellants were seeking pre-arrest bail, meaning they wanted to be granted bail before being taken into custody. The High Court had previously refused to grant them this relief.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh had previously refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellants. Subsequently, the High Court also declined the appellants’ plea for recalling the order of dismissal of their petition for anticipatory bail. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of principles related to pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court considered whether custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage, given that the appellants had joined the investigation.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they had joined the investigation and were cooperating with the authorities. They contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage, given the nature of the allegations, which primarily related to cheating in land transactions.

The State did not dispute that the appellants had joined the investigation. However, their specific arguments against granting pre-arrest bail are not detailed in the provided judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants should be granted pre-arrest bail considering they have joined the investigation and the offences alleged are primarily related to cheating in land transactions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions. The court’s decision is based on its assessment of the facts and the principle that custodial interrogation is not always necessary, especially when the accused is cooperating with the investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court that had refused pre-arrest bail to the appellants. The Court stated that since the appellants had joined the investigation and were cooperating, custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage.

The Court did not cite any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants had joined the investigation and were cooperating with the authorities. The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage, given the nature of the allegations and the appellants’ cooperation. The court’s focus was on ensuring that the investigation could proceed without the need for immediate arrest, provided the appellants continued to cooperate.

The Court noted, “In such circumstances, in our opinion, in the event the appellants cooperate with the Investigating Agency, custodial interrogation would not be necessary at this stage.” The decision was based on the principle that pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is cooperating with the investigation and custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.

The Court further stated, “We are passing this order having regard to the fact that the appellants have joined the investigation and at this stage, there is no allegation as regards their participation in investigation.” This highlights that the cooperation of the appellants was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.

The Court also clarified, “In the event the appellants refuse to cooperate with the investigating agency at any subsequent stage, it shall be open to the State to apply for cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court.” This condition ensures that the appellants continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Pre-arrest bail can be granted if the accused joins and cooperates with the investigation.
• ✓ Custodial interrogation may not be necessary if the accused is cooperating.
• ✓ The nature of the allegations (e.g., cheating in land transactions) can influence the decision on pre-arrest bail.
• ✓ The State can apply for cancellation of bail if the accused does not cooperate in the future.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, on such terms the concerned court may consider fit and proper. The court also clarified that if the appellants fail to cooperate with the investigation at any subsequent stage, the State is free to apply for cancellation of their bail before the Trial Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that pre-arrest bail can be granted if the accused joins and cooperates with the investigation, and custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. This case reinforces the principle that cooperation with the investigation can be a significant factor in granting pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunita Devi vs. State of Haryana highlights the importance of cooperation with the investigation in cases where pre-arrest bail is sought. The Court’s order allows the appellants to remain free from custody while the investigation proceeds, provided they continue to cooperate. This case underscores the principle that custodial interrogation is not always necessary, especially when the accused is willing to participate in the investigation.