Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory (Chandigarh Admin.)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
Jaswant Singh
R. S. Pathak
Judgment Date: 1978-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the appellant is enlarged on bail with two sureties of Rs. 5,000 each, bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, and subject to appearing for interrogation as reasonably required under Article 20(3). The appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977; case to be governed by this bail order.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Harsh Sawhney

Respondents

Union Territory (Chandigarh Admin.)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Tarkwuie
• R. S. Malhotra
• Navin Anand
• S. K. Bisaria

Counsels for Respondents

• M. M. Pwtchhi
• P. C. Bhartari

Case Synopsis & Summary

Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory (Chandigarh Admin.) concerns an application for bail in a Delhi police investigation under F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977. The appellant argues that bail should be granted and that custody is not required for investigation, including any search of premises in which her presence would be necessary. The State contends that the appellant’s presence is essential for conducting a search and for interrogation. The Supreme Court recalls its bail jurisprudence as articulated in Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.), [1978] 2 SCR 358, and holds that bail is not to be refused as a matter of principle merely because some investigative tasks might involve the accused; custody is not inherently required for searches, and the need for interrogation can be satisfied with the accused on bail, subject to constitutional safeguards. The Court therefore allows the appeal, directing that the appellant be enlarged on bail with two sureties of Rs. 5,000 each, and binds her to appear for interrogation as reasonably required, under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The bond is to be fixed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, and the appellant is restrained from leaving India without the Court’s prior permission. The order continues to contemplate the case under F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977.

Provisions of Law Cited

Criminal Procedure Code, sections 437 and 439Constitution of India, Article 20(3)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail as laid down in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Constitutional protection under Article 20(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant urged that bail should be granted; presence is not necessary for a search or interrogation, and the search/interrogation can be carried out while she remains on bail, under safeguards.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that the appellant’s presence is necessary for search of premises and for interrogation in connection with the investigation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.)	[1978] 2 SCR 358	Positive	Cited as the controlling bail principle; principle explained in that decision is applied to grant bail.
Delhi High Court, Mies. (Main) No. 767 of 1977	767 of 1977	Mentioned Only	Procedural history reference to the Delhi High Court order; not used as a binding bail principle in this decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

129 HARSH SAWHNEY _v._ UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.) _February_ 20, 1978 **A** [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JASWANT SINGH & R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J **B** _**Bail,**_ _**grant**_ _**of-Bail**_ _**cannot**_ _**be**_ _**refused on. the**_ _**gro_und**_ _**that judicial custody**_ _**is**_ _**nc.>cessary**_ _**]or**_ _**the**_ _**purposes**_ _**of**_ _**search**_ _**of**_ _**prefn1ses**_ _**or**_ _**1nterrogat10.n**_ _**?f**_ _**the**_ _**accuse_d**_ _**by**_ _**the**_ _**police,**_ _**as**_ _**required under**_ _**the**_ _**Crl.**_ _**Procedure**_ _**Code-Criminal**_ _**Procedu1e**_ _Cmle,_ _(Act_ _II_ _of_ 1974) 1973, _Ss._ 437 _and_ 439. **Allowing** **the** appe~l, **the** **Court** **I-IELD** **: An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for** **pUrPC¥ies** **of search** **of premises in his presence or for the purposes** **of** interrog~tion **in** **con·** **nection** **\Vith** **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, [1978] 2** S.C.R. 358 satisfied. [129 G-H] # _c_ _**t**_ **[The** **Court directed** **the** **appellant** **to** **be enlarged** **on** **bail** **with** **tw9** **sureties. of** **Rs.** **5000/- each** **and** **with** **a direction** **that** **she should** **appear** **for** **interrogat}Oil** **by** **the** **police whenever reasonably** **required,** **subject** **to** **her** **right** **under** **Article** **D** 20(3) of the Constitution]. _Gurcharan Singh_ & _Ors._ v. _State (Delhi_ _Admn.)_ [1978] 1 SCR=A.l.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 Mies. (Main) No. 767 of 1977). _V._ _M. Tarkwuie,_ _R._ _S._ _Malhotra,_ _Navi11_ _A11and_ _a11d_ S. _K. Bisaria_ for the appellant. _M. M. Pwtchhi and_ _P._ C. _Bhartari_ for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by E **F** 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 grante( The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been explained by this Court in _Gurcharan Singh_ & _Ors._ **G** _vs. State_ _(Delhi_ _Admn.)I._ On the basis of that decision this is clearly a case where the appellanf is entitled to bail. Two grounds have bee~ mentioned on beha_lf of the Stute, namely, the appellant's presence 1s necessary for ma~mg a search and recovery of certain docum~nts. We di<J not t~mk that the appellant has to be tak.en mto custody tor makmg a search of premises in her presen~e. This can be done without her being taken into custody. The other **H** (1) [l 782] S.C.R.358. 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 3 **S.C.R·** **A** ground that is put forward is the appelfant's presence is required by the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogatioii 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 ## a 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 Mai;istrate, Delhi. This bail order will govern the case registered as Cnme F.I.R. No. 285 of 1977 in Police Station (West). district Chandigarh **C** and any offence arising out of it. We further direc.t that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. S.R. _Appeal a/lowed._ I _r'_