“No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct” says Supreme Court

On April 10, 2023, the Supreme Court heard the matter Central Bureau of Investigation vs Vikas Mishra @ Vikas Mishra, where an FIR/complaint was registered by the CBI against the officials of Eastern Coalfield Limited, CISF, Railways, and others. The complaint was filed for the commission of offences under Sections 120B/409 of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent accused was arrested by the CBI and was remanded to CBI custody for a period of seven days. The learned Special Court canceled the interim bail of the respondent-accused on the ground that he did not appear before the Special Court despite specific directions and also did not cooperate with the CBI investigation. He was arrested again and remanded to judicial custody, where the accused got admitted to the hospital. The accused submitted an application for default bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet/report within the prescribed period of 90 days. 

 The learned Special Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the accused was not remanded to custody under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after the cancellation of his bail. The accused was granted interim bail under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII Cr.P.C. and his detention pursuant to cancellation of bail was on the strength of warrants issued by the Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the said application and directed to release the respondent on statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as even within 90 days from the date of re-arrest, the charge sheet was not filed. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order, CBI approached the Supreme Court. The matter was presented before the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar. 

The Supreme Court stated that CBI could not interrogate the respondent-accused for the full seven days under the police custody remand. The bench further added that thereafter, the accused remained in the hospital from time to time during the interim bail which also came to be extended from time to time. The bench further observed that “the respondent-accused has successfully avoided the full operation of the order of police custody granted by the learned Special Judge.” Moreover, the top Court added, “No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct.” The Apex Court also highlighted that by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process. The appellant-CBI was permitted to have the police custody remand of the respondent for a period of four days and the appeal was allowed.

Also Read: Supreme Court Updates