New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a High Court should not suggest or direct that an accused be subjected to custodial interrogation, observing that the manner of interrogation is best left to the discretion of the investigating agency.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a husband-wife duo accused of tampering with the service record of a school principal to alter his date of birth and extend his retirement.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by Miteshgiri alias Mulrajgiri Sevagiri Goswami and Ilaben Miteshgiri Goswami against the Gujarat High Court’s decision rejecting their anticipatory bail pleas.
In its order passed on June 16, 2026, the High Court had observed that “custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth” and had declined to grant anticipatory bail.
However, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the observation, holding that it was not for the High Court to suggest any particular form of interrogation of an accused.
“We are of the firm view that it is not for the High Court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused. This should be best left to the discretion of the investigating agency,” the Justice Bhuyan-led bench said.
The apex court further cautioned that sweeping observations regarding custodial interrogation could have consequences for persons who had not even been made accused in the case.
“By such sweeping observation that custodial interrogation of not only the applicant but all other suspects is imperative, the rights of other ‘suspects’ have been jeopardised. The High Court should avoid making such unnecessary observations,” it said.
The Supreme Court also examined the nature of allegations and said that the FIR was primarily based on documentary evidence.
The prosecution alleged that the appellants had tampered with the service record of the first appellant to change his date of birth from June 19, 1964 to June 19, 1965, thereby resulting in a change in his retirement date and unlawful gain at the cost of the public exchequer.
Appellant No. 1 was a Principal of Shri Secondary School, Vekaria, while appellant No. 2 was the President of the governing body of the school.
An FIR was registered at Visavadar Police Station in Gujarat’s Junagadh district under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
“Considering the nature of the allegations against the appellants, which are all based on documents, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the appellants is not necessary,” the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench said.
On August 25, the Supreme Court had directed that the appellants should not be arrested in connection with the case, subject to their cooperation with the investigation. After perusing the affidavit filed by the Gujarat government pursuant to the interim order, the apex court made its earlier protection from arrest absolute and directed the appellants to continue cooperating with the investigation.
Setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
(IANS)
