Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 714 (ORI)

PURUSHOTTAM BALIARSINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA

2017-07-12

S.K.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Sri Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Niranjan Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance. 2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 in V.G.R. Case No. 94/2016 of the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, arising out of Bhubaneswar Vigilance Case No. 42/2016. 3. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are a lot of lacunas in the investigation of the case and the Investigation agency has not taken into consideration the income of the wife of the petitioner and their children. They have also not taken into consideration the income from his landed property. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and found to be in possession of 18 trucks and huge other properties. It was further noted that he has disproportionate asset to the tune of rupees three crores approximately. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the fact that the petitioner was granted interim relief during the pendency of bail application contends that the petitioner has co-operated with the I. O. and produced all the documents and, therefore, there is no hindrance for granting bail to the petitioner. 5. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner though was appearing before the I.O., he is not co-operating with the investigation after several intimations. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department further submits that the petitioner taking advantage of interim protection by this Court is not answering queries of the I. O. for the investigation of the case, rather he gave out that he will explain everything before the Court during trial. Moreover, during investigation it reveals that the petitioner has concealed number of documents relating to deposits, investments and immovable assets at secret place, which he is not disclosing the same properly. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department further contends that there is every chance of tampering and destroying evidence by the petitioner, if he is released on bail. 6. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department further contends that there is every chance of tampering and destroying evidence by the petitioner, if he is released on bail. 6. It is true that the petitioner was directed while granting interim protection that he shall co-operate with the investigating officer but the I. O. has given in writing his instructions to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not co-operating. It is argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dalai submits that the petitioner has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and there is no reason to have his custodial interrogation. 7. While dealing with the application for an application for anticipatory bail, this Court has to keep in mind the various relevant aspects and considerations as laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the following factors and parameters should be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail. (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar to other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concerned. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concerned. (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The Court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 8. At Clause (viii) of the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further stated that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically stated that since many occasions he has been interrogated by the I.O., no further interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. To counter such argument, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Vigilance relies upon the case of State Represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma. (1997) 7 SCC 187 , wherein the Apex Court has laid down the law relating to effective interrogation of a suspect and has discussed the same at paragraph 6 of the aforesaid case. This Court thinks it appropriate and apt to quote the same. "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. This Court thinks it appropriate and apt to quote the same. "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information's and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a prearrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 10. Considering the aforesaid principles and facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be released on bail. Hence, the ABLAPL is rejected. Interim order dated 22.10.2014, which was extended from time to time, stands vacated.