# lOS.C.R. 129 SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [2017] 10 S.C.R. 129
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-10-10
- **Bench:** Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/los-c-r-129-santosh-s-o-dwarkadas-fafat-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-31422
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Bail: Anticipatory bail - Entitlement - Allegation against
appellant that he received misappropriated food grains meant for
public distribution - Appellant seeking anticipatory bail - Rejection
C
by the courts below - Before this Court, Investigating Officer of the
opinion that custody of the appellant ivas required for recording
his confessional statement in terms of what co-accused had already
stated; and that he was not co-operating because he kept 011
reiterating that he had not purchased the food-grains - Held:
Purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of D
confession - Right against self-incrimination is provided for in
Article 20(3) of the Constitution - 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
E
investigation, it would be open to the State to seek for cancellation
of bail - Constitution of India - Article 20(3).
Selvi and Ors. v. State of Kamataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 :
[2010] 5 SCR 381 -
referred to.
[2010] 5 SCR 381
Case Law Reference
referred· to
Para 7

## Text

[2017] lOS.C.R. 129
SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Crimina!Appea!No. 1759of2017)
A
OCTOBER 10, 2017
B
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Bail: Anticipatory bail - Entitlement - Allegation against
appellant that he received misappropriated food grains meant for
public distribution - Appellant seeking anticipatory bail - Rejection
C
by the courts below - Before this Court, Investigating Officer of the
opinion that custody of the appellant ivas required for recording
his confessional statement in terms of what co-accused had already
stated; and that he was not co-operating because he kept 011
reiterating that he had not purchased the food-grains - Held:
Purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of D
confession - Right against self-incrimination is provided for in
Article 20(3) of the Constitution - 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
E
investigation, it would be open to the State to seek for cancellation
of bail - Constitution of India - Article 20(3).
Selvi and Ors. v. State of Kamataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 :
[2010] 5 SCR 381 -
referred to.
[2010] 5 SCR 381
Case Law Reference
referred· to
Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No~ 1759 of 2017
F
From the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 24.10.2016
G
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 672 of 2016.
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Advs.
for the Appellant
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.
H
129
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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
I 1.11.2016.
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
SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFAT v. THE STATE OF
131
MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J.]
the call and attending the place wherever and whenever required
A
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."
B
5. The Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the IO") .
has accordingly filed a Status Report dated 11.09 .2017, which reads as
follows:
bail.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
1. Pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2017, the Petitioner was
arrested and released on bail after completing necessary
formalities.
c
2. Thereafter, the petitioner has been called daily to the Police
Station by me towards investigation. Upon inquiry, the petitioner D
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. I to sit in
from of the petitioner and asked him certain questions. The
accused No. I Gulam was the godown keeper. Gui am specifically
E
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
F
G
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
H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A 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
B
c
and others v. State of Karnataka 1, 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
D 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
E 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.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of.
1 (20 JO) 1 sec 263