R.Elavazhagan @ Babu vs Pankajam Vilwanathan .
- SCC(2017) 11 SCC 173
- Neutral2017 INSC 87
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellant who is on regular bail at the time a High Court directs further investigation into the case against him cannot, in any way, stall such investigation; the direction for further investigation is not stayed or affected by the fact that the appellant is already on regular bail and the appeal against the High Court's order does not survive. An accused on regular bail who fails to cooperate with further investigation ordered by the court is subject to cancellation of bail at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 204-205 OF 2017 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7088-7089 OF 2012 ]
R.ELAVAZHAGAN @ BABU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PANKAJAM VILWANATHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has mainly two grievances- i)Though
the appellant was on regular bail, the High Court, in
the impugned order, has directed cancellation of the
anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation;
ii)There is a direction in the impugned order for
further investigation.
3. It is an undisputed position that the appellant
has been on regular bail while the High Court passed
the impugned order.
4. In that view of the matter, in our view, nothing Signature Not Verified
survives in this appeal since the appellant cannot, Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.02.02 15:54:28 IST Reason:
in any way, stall the further investigation, as
ordered by the High Court in the impugned order. 2
5. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of making
it clear that the appellant shall cooperate with the
investigation and in case, there is non-cooperation
on the part of the appellant, it will be open to the
Investigating Officer to seek for cancellation of the
regular bail.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2017.
3
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIC
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). 7088-7089/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/07/2012 in MP No. 1/2009 27/07/2012 in CRLOP No. 24182/2009 27/07/2012 in CRLOP No. 26663/2007 passed by the High Court Of Madras)
R.ELAVAZHAGAN @ BABU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PANKAJAM VILWANATHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (with application for exemption from filing O.T. and stay and office report) Date : 31/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv.
Ms. Vandana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Adv.
Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv.
Mr. V. Susheetha, Adv.
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.
Ms. Nithya, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file) 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free