Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
SANTOSH V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, decided on Tuesday, October 10, 2017.
[ In the Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 8439 of 2016). ] 10/10/2017
Judge(s) : KURIAN JOSEPH & R. BANUMATHI
Advocate(s) : Garvesh Kabra, Pooja Kabra, Nikita Kabra Jaju. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Deepa Kulkarni.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Jain Irrigation Systems Limited Versus The Commissioner, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation & Others,   06/10/2017.  

  Sulaiman Ahmadi Through Pairokar Poorvi Singh Versus State,   21/09/2017.  

  Sohel Shoukat Jamadar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra,   20/09/2017.  

  Santosh Versus State of Maharashtra,   19/09/2017.  

  Santosh Ashok Chavan & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra,   18/09/2017.  

  Santosh Baban Kamble Versus The Chairman, Kini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Others,   14/09/2017.  

  Manohar Dattatray Rajopadhye Versus Vaibhav Development Corporation & Others,   12/09/2017.  

  Sukumar Kallappa Kamble Versus The State of Maharashtra,   08/09/2017.  

  Santosh Pujari Versus State (Through the Maina Curtorim Police Station),   07/09/2017.  

  Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others,   07/09/2017.  

  Santosh Versus The State of Maharashtra,   06/09/2017.  

  Bhaurao Versus State of Maharashtra,   06/09/2017.  

  Santosh Jambu Koge Versus The State of Maharashtra,   06/09/2017.  

  Vilas & Another Versus State of Maharashtra,   06/09/2017.  

  Pratiksha Pravin Raut & Another Versus Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Navi Mumbai & Others,   04/09/2017.  

  Nitesh & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   01/09/2017.  

  Manoj Madhukar Gadge & Others Versus Dattatraya,   31/08/2017.  

  Dattatraya Versus The State of Maharashtra,   29/08/2017.  

  Subhash Versus State of Maharashtra, through Anti Corruption Bureau,   23/08/2017.  

  Rajendraprasad & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra,   22/08/2017.  

  Santosh & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   16/08/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Krushna & Others,   14/08/2017.  

  Dayaram Versus The State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur,   14/08/2017.  

  Gajanan Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Anti Corruption Bureau,   10/08/2017.  

  Gunwant @ Dhudaku Trymbak Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra,   03/08/2017.  

  Sambhaji Versus The State of Maharashtra,   02/08/2017.  

  Aslam Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Home Ministry & Others,   27/07/2017.  

  Pandit Shankar Kalan, Thane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai & Others,   26/07/2017.  

  DDA Versus Mool Chand,   21/07/2017.  

  State of U.P. Versus Ram Kumar & Others,   20/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Vyankati & Others,   19/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor Versus Bhatu Narayan Patil & Others,   19/07/2017.  

  Gajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra,   17/07/2017.  

  Vincentina Paulina D'Souza Versus Sunil Kumar P. (driver) & Others,   13/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra (through Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule) Versus Rajendra @ Raju Rambhau Yadav & Others,   04/07/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Subhash,   03/07/2017.  

  Santosh Surendra Patil Versus Surendra Narasgopnda Patil & Others,   23/06/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Rajesh Pitambar Sonwane & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Rajesh Pitambar Sonwane & Others,   22/06/2017.  

  State of Maharashtra Versus Krishana Sandu Pache,   08/06/2017.  

  Shaikh Mustafa & Others Versus State of Maharashtra,   06/06/2017.  

  Ravindra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another,   06/06/2017.  

  State NCT of Delhi & Another Versus Versus Mohan & Another,   05/06/2017.  

  Jamadar Ojha & Another Versus State & Others,   01/06/2017.  

  Ismail Adam Khan & Others Versus Kashinath Govind Naik, (since deceased) & Others,   17/05/2017.  

  State of Maharashtra Versus Rajendra,   16/05/2017.  

  Dadu & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others,   09/05/2017.  

  All India Judges Association Versus Union of India & Others,   09/05/2017.  

  The State of Maharashtra Versus Arvind Shriram Lad,   08/05/2017.  

  In the matter of: Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction,   05/05/2017.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Kurian Joseph J.Leave granted.2. The appellant is one of the accused in Crime No. 63 of 2016 registered at Goregaon Police Station Goregaon Maharashtra for offences under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The allegation is that he received misappropriated food-grains meant for public distribution. In the order dated 07.10.2016 the Additional Sessions Judge Gondia rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench as per order dated 24.10.2016 was also of the same view although the same court had initially granted interim protection. Thus aggrieved the appellant is before this Court.3. On 07.11.2016 this Court passed the following Order:Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment so as to enable him to obtain instructions whether or not the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the total amount of Rs. 45 08 469/- for the misappropriated grains referred to in the first information report.At request and in the interest of justice post for hearing on 11.11.2016.Instructions be obtained in the meantime.4. The amount was deposited. Accordingly the Court granted interim protection by order dated 18.11.2016 staying the arrest. On the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that the appellant was not cooperating with the investigation this Court on 24.08.2017 passed the following Order:Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that in view of the order dated 18.11.2016 there is no cooperation on the part of the petitioner. Therefore the order dated 18.11.2016 regarding the stay of arrest of the petitioner is modified to the effect that the Investigating Officer is free to arrest the petitioner. However after arrest he shall be released on bail on execution of a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 2 00 000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with two solvent sureties for the like amount. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigation by responding to the call and attending the place wherever and whenever required by the Investigating Officer.The respondent/State is directed to file a status report with regard to the cooperation extended by the petitioner within two weeks.Post on 12.09.2017.5. The Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as the IO) has accordingly filed a Status Report dated 11.09.2017 which reads as follows:xxx xxx xxx1. Pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2017 the Petitioner was arrested and released on bail after completing necessary formalities.2. Thereafter the petitioner has been called daily to the Police Station by me towards investigation. Upon inquiry the petitioner did not answer the questions properly. The petitioner reiterated that he has not purchased the food grains. Thereafter I made Gulam Sarver Fharukh Khan i.e. the accused No. 1 to sit in from of the petitioner and asked him certain questions. The accused No.1 Gulam was the godown keeper. Gulam specifically submitted that he knows the petitioner very well. Gulam further submitted that he has nothing to say than the statement recorded during the police custody in remand. In his statement Gulam had given the modus operandi of the petitioner which has been mentioned in detail in the Counter Affidavit.3. Since there is no cooperation by the petitioner the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. For proper completion of investigation the custody of the petitioner is very much necessary. ..6. We are informed that the co-accused have been released on bail.7. It appears the IO was of the view that the custody of the appellant is required for recording his confessional statement in terms of what the co-accused had already stated in the Statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The IO was of the opinion that the appellant was not cooperating because he kept reiterating that he had not purchased the food-grains. The purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of confession. The right against self-incrimination is provided for in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It is a well settled position in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 896 : 2010(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 257 : (2010) 7 SCC 263 that Article 20(3) enjoys an exalted status. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities. Therefore merely because the appellant did not confess it cannot be said that the appellant was not cooperating with the investigation. However in case there is no cooperation on the part of the appellant for the completion of the investigation it will certainly be open to the respondent to seek for cancellation of bail.8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the liberty as above should be left to the jurisdictional Sessions Court i.e. Sessions Court Gondia.9. In case there is no cooperation on the part of the appellant for the completion of the investigation it will be open to the respondent to approach the Sessions Court Gondia Maharashtra in which case the Sessions Court having regard to the materials already collected by the IO if so satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is still required for completion of the investigation will be free to pass appropriate orders.10. The appeal is disposed of as above.