High Court: Don't defer challan for long if anticipatory bail plea pending
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, January 16
In a significant judgment liable to change the way a challan or a final investigation report is filed by an investigating agency against an accused in a criminal case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the submission of the same should not be deferred for inordinate period merely because of pendency of anticipatory bail plea. The only exception would be “specific and genuine reason”.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill has also asked the Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh’s Directors General of Police to consider the feasibility of issuing appropriate directions “to ensure that merely on account of pendency of an anticipatory bail application, the filing of report under Section 173 of the CrPC/supplementary challan against such accused is not deferred for long period”.
Elaborating upon “specific and genuine reasons”, Justice Gill asserted it could be, for instance, in a case where the modus operandi was not completely known. The investigating officer was of the opinion that custodial interrogation was absolutely necessary to unravel the details of crime and it would only be possible if the anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Justice Gill also directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to the police chiefs of the two states and the UT for necessary compliance. In his detailed order, Justice Gill added the court had noticed “some kind of tendency” with the investigating agency/prosecution to not present the report under Section 173 of the CrPC/supplementary challan during the pendency of an application for grant of anticipatory bail even though the accused may have joined the investigation and there was no bar on the same.
Justice Gill added the court could visualise certain situations where the investigating agency/prosecution, keen to subject the accused to custodial interrogation, would be hoping for dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea. It would, as such, prefer to wait for pending petition’s outcome. But an accused was not required to be subjected to custodial interrogation in every case. In several cases, the prosecution was able to complete its investigation upon the accused joining the probe without the necessity to subject him/her to custodial interrogation.
Justice Gill added a large number of instances had come to the court’s notice where the investigating agency/prosecution chose not to present report/supplementary challan during the pendency of anticipatory bail application. “It will be desirable that before taking such a decision for deferring the filing of the report, the investigating agency/prosecution thoroughly examines the matter to consider as to whether the case is such where custodial interrogation would be required in case anticipatory bail application is dismissed despite the fact that the accused on the basis of interim directions may have joined investigation,” Justice Gill added.
