Courts cannot suggest to investigating agencies that an accused or suspect should be subjected to custodial interrogation, the Supreme Court has held, cautioning that sweeping observations on the need to take people into custody can jeopardise their liberty.
It noted that the allegations against the couple were based on documents and, therefore, custodial interrogation was not necessary.
More significantly, it took exception to the Gujarat high court’s observation that “custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth”.
Also Read I SC directs mother to take 7-year-old daughter back to US by December 31 in custody dispute
The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a retired school principal and his wife in a case registered in Gujarat over alleged manipulation of the principal’s service records to extend his tenure by a year to June 2023 and allegedly draw over ₹ 10.75 lakh in salary and service benefits. A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar underlined it is for the investigating agency to seek custodial interrogation or otherwise, and not for courts to suggest or dictate the nature of custody or questioning required in a case. “We are of the firm view that it is not for the high court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused. The order is significant for the distinction it draws between the investigating agency’s discretion in deciding the manner of interrogation and a court’s role while considering a plea for protection from arrest. It made clear that a court assessing whether an accused deserves protection cannot, in the process, prescribe a particular mode of interrogation or make sweeping findings about the custody of other suspects. The court stayed the arrest of the couple on the condition that they cooperate with the investigation.
This should be best left to the discretion of the investigating agency,” said the bench in a recent order, while adding that any “sweeping observation” about the custody of other accused or suspects in the case ought to be avoided.
It consequently set aside the high court’s order and made its earlier interim protection from arrest absolute.
