Mahabir Prasad Verma vs Dr. Surinder Kaur on 7 April, 1982
4. In view of the above admitted factual and legal position, only question which requires consideration is whether keeping the accused in judicial custody for further 13 days would serve any useful purpose. On being asked a specific question as to how the release of the accused, at this stage, would interfere with the investigations, learned Counsel for the CBI argued that statement of witnesses from AIRTEL and BSNL are yet to be recorded and CBI apprehends that these witnesses may not come forward to give their statements, in case the accused persons are released on bail. It is difficult to appreciate this argument. Admittedly, IO has already collected print outs of relevant record from the AIRTEL and BSNL to support the plea that there was earlier conversations amongst the accused persons regarding giving of the bribe by the petitioner to secure the transfer from Delhi to Bombay. The witnesses are to be examined on the basis of the record already collected, nothing more. As per the settled law, telephone conversations, if proved, to be genuine and not tampered with, can at best constitute a corroborating piece of evidence. Reference in this regard may be made to the Supreme Court decision in Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur, . Investigations regarding substantive piece of evidence appears to be already complete. The accused persons cannot be kept in judicial custody as a measure of pre-trial punishment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, no useful purpose is likely to be served by keeping the accused persons in custody any longer.