Custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract information after recovery; HC restores anticipatory bail

In a significant ruling on the scope of custodial interrogation and the duties of investigating agencies, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that police cannot seek custody of an accused merely because they are unable to gather further information after recovery has already been effected.

The court made it clear that "custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information". It added that it was the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a "fair and effective investigation" by using "lawful means, professional expertise, and assistance of other members of the investigating team" to collect evidence and trace other persons involved, if any.

The High Court also held that, in the facts of the case before it, interim anticipatory bail could not be withdrawn merely because the investigating agency had failed to ascertain the identities of other persons allegedly connected with the offence after recovery had already been carried out and the accused had joined the investigation.

The observations came as Justice Sanjay Vashisth allowed a petition filed by an accused in a case registered under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act at Phool police station in Bathinda district.

The petitioner had initially secured interim anticipatory bail from Bathinda Additional Sessions Judge in an illicit liquor case. The court had then observed that questions relating to ownership and possession of the house in question still required investigation and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not indispensable. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation.

Thereafter, the investigating officer informed the trial court that the petitioner had joined the investigation on May 19 and that recovery had already been carried out. The officer, however, asserted that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the whereabouts of the persons from whom the petitioner had allegedly procured the apparatus used for preparing illicit liquor and those to whom the liquor was allegedly intended to be sold.

Justice Vashisth noted that the interim protection was withdrawn on the basis of the investigating officer's submission "without undertaking any substantive examination as to whether custodial interrogation was genuinely necessary after the petitioner had already joined the investigation, or whether such information could reasonably be expected to be furnished by the petitioner or to be established independently by the investigating officer".

Acting on the investigating officer's submission, the Sessions Court withdrew the interim protection and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Examining the matter, Justice Vashisth observed that once recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor had already been effected, the investigating agency's inability to identify the persons to whom the illicit liquor was allegedly to be supplied, or those from whom the equipment had allegedly been procured, could not constitute a valid ground for withdrawing the discretionary relief earlier granted to the petitioner.

"The inability of the investigating agency to ascertain the identities of the persons to whom the 'lahan' or illicit liquor was to be supplied, or from whom the apparatus used for its preparation had been procured, could not constitute a valid ground for withdrawal of the discretionary relief earlier granted to the petitioner, especially when he had duly joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order," the court observed.

Justice Vashisth further held that "once the recovery stood effected, the plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not, by itself, justify the cancellation of interim anticipatory bail".

"Custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information. It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and effective investigation by utilizing lawful means, professional expertise, and assistance of other members of the investigating team to collect evidence and trace the persons involved, if any," the court added.

Justice Vashisth also attached significance to the fact that there was no allegation that the petitioner had misused the concession of interim bail. Nor had the Sessions Court recorded any finding that he had failed to cooperate with the investigation or violated any condition imposed upon him.

"Moreover, there is no allegation whatsoever that petitioner misused the concession of interim bail granted by learned Sessions Court. Significantly, no such finding or observation has been recorded in the order dated 30.05.2026," the court noted.

On the procedural aspect, Justice Vashisth observed that the legality of the Sessions Court's order withdrawing interim protection ordinarily required examination in revisional jurisdiction. Referring to the High Court's powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the court noted that revisional powers could be exercised to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of orders passed by subordinate courts.

The High Court thereafter exercised its revisional jurisdiction suo motu and held that the portion of the Sessions Court's order withdrawing interim protection was unsustainable in law.

Consequently, the court set aside the withdrawal of interim protection and made the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner absolute, subject to the conditions already imposed. The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as and when required and to comply with the conditions prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.