Custody on summons appearance can support bail refusal where prima facie material and witness interference risk are present.

A person who appears before the court in response to summons and submits to its jurisdiction can be treated as being in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court rejected the argument that summons appearance alone excludes custody or prevents remand under Section 309(2), holding that summons is only a process to secure attendance and does not confer any assurance of bail. On the facts, the court also noted prima facie material of involvement in the alleged conspiracy, receipt of illegal gratification through a controlled company, and a risk of witness influence, so the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of interference with investigation justified refusal of bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, who appeared before the Special Judge pursuant to summons, were in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and entitled to bail.

Analysis: The petitioners contended that appearance on summons did not amount to custody and that remand under Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was impermissible unless they were already in custody. The Court rejected this approach and held that the expression "custody" in Section 439 is of wide import and includes a person who submits to the jurisdiction of the court by physical appearance. Once the petitioners appeared in response to process and their request for release was declined, they came within the control of the court, enabling judicial custody. The Court further held that the choice of summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 concerns securing appearance and does not confer any assurance of bail or limit the court's power to remand. On the merits, the Court found prima facie material showing the petitioners' involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the receipt of allegedly illegal gratification through the company controlled by them, and the risk of influencing witnesses given their position and political influence. Applying the settled bail factors, the Court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of interference with investigation outweighed the plea for liberty.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held to be in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no ground was made out for grant of bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications failed on both the custody objection and the merits, and the petitioners remained in judicial custody during the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who appears before the court in response to summons and submits to its jurisdiction is in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and bail may be refused where prima facie material, gravity of accusation, and risk of interference with justice so warrant.

---