Harsh Sawhney Vs. Union Territory
(Chandigarh Admn.)  INSC 38 (20 February 1978)
SINGH, JASWANT PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION: 1978 AIR 1016 1978 SCR (3) 129 1978
SCC (2) 365
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
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,  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.)  1 SCR=A.I.R. 1978 SC 179, Applied.
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
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 (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)  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.