Shavi Verma v. State Of Haryana

 



   
   
 
! "
  
!  

























#$#$%$ ! !!
&'%' ()) # *


) (( (  "
*''

(
!
 
!

'

#$#$%+$ ( (,# "!) *''


) (( (  "

!


*''

(
!
(  # 
- .# ' ( (
!#!.'

//// 






 
 


 



#"#$%  &
'

%  (
) 
 
 




#"#$% 
+ )
'
)
, -
./ 
/
0 1
 
 
2
 &
'

% (
!#!.0

'
 


4
 22

&


 
 & 






 

54


 
(

 


)
$
 

 
&
 
2

 



54
7
#8 


"9 #"#$

)
$#"
$!9
$!*
$*8

8#" +

 
4
2


8 !"

 
:4 ;%
&

2
)
2
' 
, -&  

54

&

 


,
.  -

,
'


+ 2
22&&
 /
1




 <
 
2= 


4
, 
#"#
)
> 


#"#$%
 
 
1



21 
&
2


 

) 
'



#"#$%
1 


&
2 
2
22
 







 

 2




)
>

2

1 
)
> &
 

 ?


&
 /
12

 
/

 
2 


6 
 
2

22
 
? 
2&
/
2
2
 

@
#!

"# #"#$
 / 1

 
2




1


2 


2
 12 A2 % /

2
& 
+
02

)0456
/

, 
+
-/
.1 

4,5
+
2


 
)0456




 
 

) 
'


2



B 
5%
2&
 
##"9
C
1
&

 
2D
4,5 

E
 

4,5
+ 
 


/




 
 


  
D

1 B 
2 
 
 


1
2
 
&
 2


) 
'D
2
) 
'

)
>

 2




 2
&

, 
+
7
 &


 
2

2B
 /
1


 


.
 

54

  





F
2

 
 ) 
'


#"#$%

 
 


22/
2

 


 


22&

&
/

 
2


 
22&

 
54


&&
/

 




 
 
)
>%


&
 
/ 2/
)
>
&

 ?

2 
2
 
 ) 
'

2



6 


2/ 

&

2

)
>

7


 2 2




 


&


 


&


1


/ 


 22/


2;
 2
22&

6 

2
2/
 2&&
 
54

 
2

2

&
/
<2
 
2/

&
 


 
2 F
2

 
 )
>


#"#$%

 
 




/
 
22&

 
54



2

2


 &
 &/

<
/


1 
 


 

/ 

2

 


 


6 

1 2/

1


1
 
2
) 
' 



 1


/


2
 

&
2

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-STATE AND COMPLAINANTS F
)
2

/
2
2

 2

 
 


22&

222
& 

 
 /

 
2

/ &

21

2

&


.
2
2

 


2&  

 4


2
&
 
2

  
2&
 
& 

2
G
2 /

 
&&

 
 


1 
1 


</
1
 



.1
 
1



<

1





 

/
 


 2





2/


2
 &
2
)0456
/

, 
+

 


B 


 
=2

6 

/ 
&

 

1 

 

  

 
 ?

2

 
2

1  
 22

4&&
&/
4


1
 
 
<
2
 




 


 
22&
&
)0456
/ 
, 
+

 


B 
 
2 &

 

12
2/

? 
.D 2
)


 


 !"#$
%$&''(
)* %+
, $%
 ,
-
+%

!.'
$/
01
2
2
 
2/
 2
&
1

?
/
2
2



&

& /
2
6 


 

 &
 

&


3 /
2
2




 



&
  
2
<

 
(&


 21

HIt may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that chargesheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. + $+4
$+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8
$""'%*9
/'
#$.'
+6"!5'&
6+'
56 6+ $%: '+"
7'!+:
5$+.$**'&
"#$"
+6
5*"6&!$8
!+"'%%6:$"!6+
!* %';!%'&
$+&9
"#'%'<6%'9
$+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8
$4
7'
:%$+"'&
#'%'

$(('$%*
"6
7'
$
*'%!6*
!*56+5'("!6+
6<
8$/
"#$"
!<
+6
5$*'
<6% 5*"6&!$8
!+"'%%6:$"!6+
!*
$&'
6"
74
"#'
(%6*'5"!6+9
"#'+
"#$" $86+'
/68&
7'
$
:66&
:%6+&
"6
:%$+"
$+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8
*"6&!$8 !+"'%%6:$"!6+
5$+
7'
6+'
6<
"#'
%'8'.$+"
$*('5"*
"6
7'
56+*!&'%'& $86+:
/!"#
6"#'%
:%6+&*
/#!8'
&'5!&!+:
$+
$((8!5$"!6+
*''=!+: $+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8
#'%'
$4
7'
$+4
5$*'*
!+
/#!5#
"#'
5*"6&!$8 !+"'%%6:$"!6+
6<
"#'
$55*'&
$4
+6"
7'
%';!%'&9
7"
"#$"
&6'*
+6" '$+
"#$"
"#'
(%! $
<$5!'
5$*'
$:$!+*"
"#'
$55*'&
*#68&
7' !:+6%'&
6%
6.'%866='&
$+&
#'
*#68&
7'
:%$+"'&
$+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8 #'
<!%*"
$+&
<6%' 6*"
"#!+:
"#$"
"#'
56%"
#'$%!+:
$+
$+"!5!($"6%4 7$!8
$((8!5$"!6+
*#68&
56+*!&'%
!*
"#'
(%! $
<$5!'
5$*'
("
( $:$!+*"
"#'
$55*'&
#'%'$<"'%9
"#'
+$"%'
6<
"#'
6<<'+5'
*#68&
7' 866='&
!+"6
$86+:
/!"#
"#'
*'.'%!"4
6<
"#'
(+!*# '+"
*"6&!$8 !+"'%%6:$"!6+
5$+
7'
6+'
6<
"#'
:%6+&*
"6
&'58!+'
5*"6&!$8 !+"'%%6:$"!6+
6/'.'%9
'.'+
!<
5*"6&!$8
!+"'%%6:$"!6+
!*
+6" %';!%'&
6%
+'5'**!"$"'&9
74
!"*'8<9
5$++6"
7'
$
:%6+&
"6
:%$+" $+"!5!($"6%4
7$!8."



&

22
&&


 



4
 2


21
 
1
< 2

)
$
 


 1 
</

 





<

<2

  
)


>"$"'
.*
+!8
#$% $?@
0 AA21
2

29
2 


"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also material which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prearrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to thirddegree methods needs not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

4
1

 


 
22&

2
 

 
 
&


2&2
2
 
2
&

 

2/
? 
4





 
 

#"#$


#"#$

 


 / 

.1



2
 
 

 

 2/

 


&
 
2
2

 
62


 
(

 



1
21

(
!#!.1 &'%' 

! sham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No