- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SUNITA DEVI v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants are accused of offences primarily involving cheating in relation to certain land transactions. After the High Court of Punjab and Haryana refused their applications for anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail—and subsequently declined to recall that dismissal—the appellants petitioned the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these proceedings, both appellants joined the investigation conducted by the State.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants, who have already joined the investigation, are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail in connection with cheating allegations arising from land-related transactions.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Both appellants have voluntarily joined the investigation, demonstrating cooperation with the investigating agency.
- Given this cooperation, custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
State's Position
- The State does not dispute that the appellants have joined the investigation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4578 | High Court judgment refusing anticipatory bail to the appellants. | Set aside by the Supreme Court. |
| 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4577 | High Court order declining to recall the dismissal of the anticipatory-bail petition. | Set aside by the Supreme Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that:
- The appellants have already joined the investigation, and there is presently no allegation that they have failed to cooperate.
- The offences alleged pertain to cheating in land transactions; the Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage, provided cooperation continues.
- In light of these factors, the denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court was unjustified.
- The Court emphasised that if the appellants subsequently refuse to cooperate, the State retains the right to seek cancellation of bail before the trial court.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; High Court orders set aside. Anticipatory bail granted subject to terms to be fixed by the trial court.
Direct Consequences: The appellants are protected against arrest, conditioned on their continued cooperation with the investigation. The State may move for cancellation of bail upon any future non-cooperation. The decision is confined to the facts at hand and does not establish a new legal precedent beyond reaffirming the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail.
1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that both of them have joined investigation. The learned counsel for the State also does not dispute this.
3. The offences alleged against the appellants primarily relate to cheating in connection with certain land related transactions. In such circumstances, in our opinion, in the event the appellants cooperate with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation would not be necessary at this stage.
4. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4578 of the High Court refusing pre-arrest bail to the appellants and the subsequent order 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4577 passed declining appellants' plea for recalling the order of dismissal of their petition for anticipatory bail.
5. Let the appellants be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, on such terms the court concerned may consider fit and proper.
6. We are passing this order having regard to the fact that the appellants have joined the investigation and at this stage, there is no allegation as regards their participation in investigation. In the event the appellants refuse to cooperate with the investigating agency at any subsequent stage, it shall be open to the State to apply for cancellation of the bail before the trial court.
7. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Alert