The Supreme Court has held that High Courts should not make sweeping observations suggesting that custodial interrogation of an accused is necessary while deciding an anticipatory bail plea, observing that the nature and manner of interrogation should be left to the investigating agency.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice 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 appellants, who are husband (A1) and wife (A2), were accused in a case concerning alleged manipulation of the principal’s service records. A1 was the Principal of Shri Secondary School, while A2 was the President of its governing body.
According to the allegations, the couple tampered with A1’s service record to change his date of birth from June 19, 1964 to June 19, 1965, thereby extending his date of retirement. A1 was also alleged to have made unlawful gains at the cost of the public exchequer.
An FIR was registered under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Gujarat High Court rejected A1’s anticipatory bail plea in June 2026, observing that “custodial interrogation” of the applicant and other suspects was “imperative to unearth the truth.”
The Supreme Court, however, took exception to the observation.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts must not suggest how an accused should be interrogated, emphasizing that such decisions are strictly up to the investigating agency. The bench cautioned that observing that custodial interrogation was imperative jeopardized the rights of potential suspects and advised the High Court to avoid making such unnecessary remarks.
The Supreme Court noted that the allegations against the appellants were primarily documentary in nature and held that custodial interrogation was not necessary. It also took note of the fact that A1 was a senior citizen who had retired as a school principal.
In August, the Supreme Court had directed that the appellants should not be arrested, subject to their cooperation with the investigation.
Setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order, the Bench made the interim protection absolute and directed the appellants to continue cooperating with the investigation.
The post Supreme Court: High Court should not suggest custodial interrogation is necessary while deciding anticipatory bail appeared first on India Legal.