HARSH SAWHNEY versus UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)

HARSH SAWHNEY versus UNION TERRITORY (CHANDIGARH ADMN.)

Bail cannot be refused on the ground that judicial custody is necessary for purposes of search of premises or for interrogation of the accused by the police. An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for these purposes if principles on grant or refusal of bail are satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: Harsh Sawhney; Respondent: Union Territory (Chandigarh Administration)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of Delhi High Court Dated 13th January, 1978 in Misc. (main) No. 767 of 1977
Outcome
Appeal allowed; bail granted.
Legal Topics
Bail, Judicial Custody, Police Interrogation, Search of Premises
Criminal Law Bail Judicial Custody Police Interrogation Search of Premises

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harsh Sawhney

Appellant

Union Territory (Chandigarh Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of Delhi High Court Dated 13th January, 1978 in Misc. (main) No. 767 of 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bail can be refused solely on the grounds that custody is necessary for search of premises or police interrogation

Ratio Decidendi

Bail cannot be refused on the ground that judicial custody is necessary for purposes of search of premises or for interrogation of the accused by the police. An accused need not necessarily be taken into custody for these purposes if principles on grant or refusal of bail are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; bail granted.

Orders

  • Appellant to be enlarged on bail with two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each.
  • Appellant to appear for police interrogation whenever reasonably required, subject to her rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.