1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024.
(Arising from SLP(Crl.)No(s). 1079/2024)
BIJENDER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the appellant
and the State.
The appellant is a Junior Engineer (Electrical) attached
to the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, Haryana. His plea for
anticipatory bail has been rejected by the High Court on
19.12.2023 and the appellant is before us assailing that order.
The allegations against the appellant primarily relates to
taking a bribe to sign the proposal to enhance the cost
estimate for upgrading a building of the Municipal Corporation,
Sonepat, to a ‘green building’. The Municipal Corporation
alleges that such exercise led to inflating of the tender
value.
The learned counsel for the State opposed his plea for
pre-arrest bail by filing a counter affidavit. In our order
passed on 05.02.2024 giving the appellant interim protection,
it was directed that the said protection was subject to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
appellant’s cooperation with the investigating agency. It is
Date: 2024.03.06
16:53:57 IST
Reason:
not in dispute that the appellant has joined the investigation
but the main reason for opposing the prayer of the appellant
2
for pre-arrest bail has been disclosed in paragraph 13 of the
counter affidavit, which we quote below:-
“13. That the petitioner/accused had though joined
investigation on dated 10.02.2024, as per order passed
by this Hon’ble Court but the petitioner did not co-
operate with the police nor got recovered the amount of
bribe received by him nor disclosed the other facts of
this case properly. Therefore, the custodial
interrogation of petitioner/accused is required in the
present case for thorough investigation.”
We cannot treat the behaviour attributed to the appellant
to be instances of non-cooperation justifying dismissal of his
appeal for pre-arrest bail. An accused, while joining
investigation as a condition for remaining enlarged on bail, is
not expected to make self-incriminating statements under the
threat that the State shall seek withdrawal of such interim
protection.
In this proceeding, we are concerned with detention of
the appellant at the investigation stage and we are not testing
the legality of the case instituted against him. We do not find
any reason for custodial interrogation of the appellant. There
is no aggravating factor either, which would justify his
detention at the investigation stage.
We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and direct
that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with
FIR No.0354/2022 dated 22.06.2022 registered with Police
Station Faridabad Kotwali, District Faridabad, Haryana he shall
be released on bail on such terms and conditions the Trial
Court may consider fit and proper.
We further direct that the appellant shall continue to
3
cooperate with the investigating officer during the period of
investigation.
The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
...................J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
...................J.
[SANJAY KUMAR]
New Delhi;
March 06, 2024.
4
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1079/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-12-2023
in CRM-M No. 58694/2023 passed by the High Court Of Punjab &
Haryana At Chandigarh)
BIJENDER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.18659/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.18664/2024-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. )
Date : 06-03-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Pradyuman Kaistha, Adv.
Ms. Anshala Verma, Adv.
Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR
Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Raj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted
anticipatory bail in terms of the signed order, which is placed on
the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NIRMALA NEGI) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
