| |
CDJ 2026 SC 338
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 15397 of 2025) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Parties : M.B. Shefin Versus State of Kerala |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ------ |
| Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 201, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120B & 34)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a))
2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Investigation
- Custodial interrogation
3. Summary:
The appellant feared arrest in connection with FIR No.06/2025/SIU-1 for offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Counsel for the appellant argued lack of evidence of demand and acceptance, characterising the case as mere negligence. The State counsel contended that the matter was still under investigation. The Court, without delving into merits, noted the appellant’s cooperation and the documentary basis of the investigation, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and anticipatory bail was granted with conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, and the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
3. The appellant apprehends his arrest, in connection with FIR No.06/2025/SIU-1 dated 14.05.2025, registered at Police Station Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Special Investigation Unit-1, Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, at best, it is a case of negligence as there is no evidence to show demand and acceptance.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the State submitted that the case is in investigation stage.
6. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. As the appellant has been cooperating with the investigation and the investigation is based upon documentary evidence, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required.
7. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order, and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside, and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
9. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
