Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant accused in an extortion-conspiracy case arising out of loan recovery disputes. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage and directed that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail on conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer. The State was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant failed to cooperate with the investigation44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Facts
A complaint was lodged by the Chairman of Kalpataru Co-operative Credit Society, Ulhasnagar, alleging that accused persons, including the appellant, had borrowed substantial loan amounts but, in order to evade repayment and obstruct recovery, engaged an underworld don, Suresh Pujari (A5). It was alleged that Suresh Pujari made repeated extortion and threat calls between January 2021 – April 2021, naming the accused as “his people” while making such threats. The complainant alleged that this conspiracy linked the appellant and others to the extortion attempt44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Based on the complaint, FIR No. 161/2021 was registered on 13 May 2021 at Ulhasnagar Police Station, District Thane City, under Sections 385, 387, 504, 506(2), 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Issues
- Whether custodial interrogation of the appellant was necessary in light of the allegations of conspiracy and abetment of extortion.
- Whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite the seriousness of the offence, considering repayment of the loan was disputed.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant-Accused)
The appellant argued that:
- He was being falsely implicated in the extortion conspiracy.
- The loan repayment issue was already being addressed, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
- He had cooperated with the investigation and there was no risk of tampering with evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments (State/Complainant)
The State and complainant opposed bail, contending that:
- The allegations involved serious offences of extortion using the influence of an underworld don.
- The complainant disputed the claim of repayment of loans.
- Custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the extent of conspiracy.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, balancing the rights of the accused against the need for investigation. It noted that anticipatory bail can be granted even in cases involving serious allegations if custodial interrogation is not essential. The Court further observed that liberty can be safeguarded by imposing strict conditions and preserving the power of cancellation in case of non-cooperation44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Precedent Analysis
While the order does not cite specific precedents, the reasoning is consistent with earlier Supreme Court judgments such as:
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 – custodial interrogation is not mandatory in every case.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 – anticipatory bail should not be denied merely on the ground of seriousness of the charge.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that:
- The threat of arrest for custodial interrogation “looms large,” but at this stage, custodial interrogation was not required.
- The appellant had already been protected earlier and there was no material to suggest deliberate non-cooperation.
- The State’s interests would be protected by granting liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant misuses liberty44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed. The appellant was granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, furnishing travel and contact details, and re-depositing the passport if required. The State was expressly given liberty to seek cancellation if the appellant failed to comply44658_2025_17_10_64376_Order_17….
Implications
This ruling underscores the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted even in grave offences like extortion if custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Court reaffirmed that bail should balance the accused’s right to libertywith the State’s power to investigate, safeguarding both interests. It also shows that disputes arising out of financial dealings, even when allegedly linked with criminal intimidation, will not automatically justify custodial detention.