High Court Should Not Suggest Custodial Interrogation Of Accused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that High Courts should not suggest or prescribe that an accused must be subjected to custodial interrogation while deciding an anticipatory bail application.
A Bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had rejected anticipatory bail to a retired school principal and his wife.
The couple had been accused of allegedly tampering with the service records of the principal to change his date of birth and extend his period of service.
According to the prosecution, the principal’s date of birth was allegedly changed from June 19, 1964, to June 19, 1965. The alteration allegedly resulted in his retirement being extended and caused unlawful financial gain at the expense of the public exchequer.
An FIR was registered at Visavadar Police Station in Gujarat under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including provisions relating to cheating, forgery, falsification of records and criminal conspiracy.
The Gujarat High Court rejected the couple’s anticipatory bail plea in June 2026. While doing so, it observed that custodial interrogation of the applicants as well as other suspects was necessary to uncover the truth.
The Supreme Court took exception to this observation.
The Bench held that determining the form and manner of interrogation is primarily a matter for the investigating agency. A High Court, while considering an anticipatory bail plea, should not prescribe or suggest that a particular form of interrogation is necessary.
The Supreme Court observed that such a sweeping statement could also affect the rights of other persons who may be described as suspects in the investigation but are not before the court.
The Bench therefore cautioned High Courts against making unnecessary observations about the manner in which an investigation should be conducted.
The Supreme Court also examined the nature of the allegations in the present case and noted that they were substantially based on documentary evidence.
The court found that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary in the circumstances. It also took note of the fact that the first appellant was a senior citizen who had already retired as a school principal.
The couple had earlier approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court refused them anticipatory bail. In August 2026, the Supreme Court had granted them interim protection from arrest on the condition that they cooperate with the investigation.
The State of Gujarat subsequently filed its response before the Supreme Court, following which the Bench considered whether the protection should continue.
After examining the material, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail.
The court made its earlier interim protection from arrest absolute, subject to the appellants continuing to cooperate with the investigation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not prevent an investigating agency from seeking custodial interrogation where it considers such interrogation necessary and legally permissible.
Instead, the judgment draws a distinction between the court’s role in deciding whether an accused should receive protection from arrest and the investigating agency’s responsibility for determining how the investigation should be conducted.
The ruling also emphasises that courts should avoid making broad observations that could prejudice the rights of persons who have not been heard before them.
The case is significant in the context of anticipatory bail proceedings, where courts frequently assess whether arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for a fair investigation.
The Supreme Court has made clear that such assessment must be based on the circumstances of the particular case and should not result in the court directing investigators to adopt a specific method of interrogation.
The investigation against the couple will therefore continue, with the appellants remaining protected from arrest under the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court.
The judgment reinforces the principle that the investigating agency should retain discretion over the manner of interrogation, while courts must safeguard personal liberty and ensure that the legal requirements governing arrest and investigation are followed.
