The Supreme Court allowed the CBI's petition in a corruption case, reiterating that the accused had intentionally impeded the investigation by refusing to cooperate with the agency.
The Court emphasized that no accused person could be allowed to hinder the judicial process through their actions. It was undisputed that the right to custodial interrogation/investigation was crucial for the investigating agency to uncover the truth, which the accused had purposefully and successfully attempted to thwart.
Brief Facts:
In November 2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a First Information Report (FIR) or a complaint against several officials from Eastern Coalfield Limited, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Railways, and others for violating sections 120B/409 of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the CBI took Vikas Mishra into custody in April of 2021 and detained him for seven days in their custody. However, he was admitted to the hospital during his detention period, which hindered the CBI from interrogating him.
Contentions of the Appellant (CBI):
The CBI counsel strongly contended that the agency had secured a seven-day police custody remand for the accused in April 2021. However, the accused secured interim bail after admitting himself to the hospital, which was later revoked in December 2021. Consequently, the CBI was unable to carry out the police custody remand allowed by the Special Judge earlier.
The Counsel further argued that the order granting the seven-day police custody remand had become final and conclusive. Therefore, the CBI should be permitted to exercise the remaining seven days of police custody remand. They further emphasized that the accused had successfully evaded the Court's order of police remand by admitting himself to the hospital on various pretexts. They asserted that no one should be allowed to obstruct the Court's legal process.
Contentions of the Respondent (Accused):
The defense counsel relied on previous case decisions and contended that police custody could not be granted beyond the initial 15 days from the date of arrest. He asserted that any further extension of police custody was impermissible. Additionally, the counsel argued that the accused person's hospitalization resulted from his medical condition and was not a ploy to avoid custody. The defense counsel also highlighted that the accused person had already undergone extensive interrogation in the present case while being in police custody for another matter. Therefore, he contended that the CBI's request for police custody of the accused person could not be granted. The defense counsel also brought attention to the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by the co-accused, in which the CBI's investigation was under challenge. The defense counsel stated that the Court had passed an interim order that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner in that case.
Observations of the Court:
After thoroughly examining the arguments presented by both parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the Court concluded that the accused had not attempted to tamper with the evidence or abscond.
Nevertheless, the accused had willfully obstructed the investigation by refusing to cooperate with the investigating agency. The Court believed that the accused intentional non-cooperation was a clear-cut misuse of the bail granted for medical reasons. The judge also considered the offence's gravity, the evidence's nature, the accused person's current circumstances, and the interests of the public and the nation. Consequently, the Court concluded that the accused must be detained and interrogated in custody. Thus, CBI's petition was allowed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: CBI v Vikas Mishra @Vikash Mishra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal 957 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 295 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T Ravikumar
Advocates for Petitioner: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Advocate
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. & Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
