The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: That on 27.11.2020, an FIR/complaint came to be registered by the CBI (ACB, Kolkata) against inter alia the officials of Eastern Coalfield Limited, CISF, Railways and others for the commission of offences under sections 120B/409 of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 08.12.2021, the learned Special Court cancelled the interim bail of the respondent-accused on the ground that he did not appear before the Special Court despite specific directions and also did not cooperate with the CBI investigation. 3 Against the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application submitted by the accused – Vikas Mishra for statutory/default bail under Section 167(2)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-001144-001146-2011/
Cr.P.C., the respondent-accused preferred the present application before the High Court.
It is submitted that however the accused got himself first admitted to hospital and thereafter got interim bail which came to be subsequently cancelled on 08.12.2021, the CBI could not exercise the police custody remand which as such was allowed by the learned Special Judge on 16.04.2021. 1
It is submitted that as such the order granting seven days police custody remand attained finality and therefore the CBI should be given the police custody remand of the accused for the remainder period of seven days. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 266, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that as such no police custody can be granted/allowed beyond the first 15 days from the date of arrest.
3 It is further submitted that even otherwise between 08.04.2022 to 18.04.2022 when the respondent was remanded to police custody in another case, during that time, he was extensively interrogated in the present RC as well. While considering the prayer of the CBI for police custody for the remainder period of seven days, it is required to be noted that as such the learned Special Judge granted seven days police custody of the respondent-accused on 16.04.2021. That thereafter, by order dated 08.12.2021, the learned Special Judge cancelled the interim bail by observing that the respondent accused has misused the interim bail and has not cooperated with the CBI in investigation and that there was no valid reason for his hospitalisation. The only aspect on which the present prayer under adjudication seems to be banked upon is that the accused person willfully halted the progress of the investigation by not cooperating the investigating agency during his attendances before them.
I also am convinced to say that this non-cooperation is consciously active and pre-designed and this is sufficient to presume willful misuse of liberty of bail on the part of the accused person which he obtained exclusively on medical ground. The nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of evidence collected before and after the interim bail was granted as against this accused person, the present circumstances and shown gesture of designed reluctance of the accused person in assisting the investigation to progress, and the larger interest of the public and the nation – all at a time, impel me to jump to the judicial inference that the accused person should no more be allowed to enjoy the liberty of the interim bail granted to him on 21.04.2021 and which has been extended from time to time till date.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
In the contrary it is found that the accused person is suffering from cirrhosis of liver since before this case was initiated and there had been ups and downs in his health condition. Kulkarni (supra), this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest.
In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. When we put a very pertinent question to Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused that in a given case it may happen that the learned trial/Special Court refuses to grant the police custody erroneously which as such was prayed within 15 days and/or immediately on the date of arrest and thereafter the order passed by the trial/Special Court is challenged by the investigating agency before the higher Court, namely, Sessions Court or the High Court and the higher Court reverses the decision of the learned Magistrate refusing to grant the police custody and by that time the period of 15 days is over, what would be position?
Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process. It is required to be noted that the accused in the present case – Vikas Mishra in fact filed a similar special leave petition, however, this Court declined to grant the permission to the respondent-accused to file the special leave petition by reserving liberty in his favour to pursue the remedies which were available in law. SHAH] NEW DELHI;……………..
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-003481-003481-2022/
J.
Case Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. VIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA (2023 INSC 345)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000957-000957 / 2023
