Court Rejects Custodial Interrogation as Grounds for Cancelling Interim Bail
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinstated anticipatory bail for Karam Singh, who was previously granted interim bail in connection with a case registered under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Justice Sanjay Vashisth delivered the judgment on June 4, 2026, overturning the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which had earlier withdrawn interim bail citing the need for custodial interrogation.
The case originated from FIR No. 61, dated May 3, 2026, filed at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda, under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The petitioner had initially secured interim bail on May 15, 2026, with the condition to join the investigation. However, following the recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor, the investigating officer sought custodial interrogation to trace the origins of the apparatus used for the illicit activity and the intended recipients of the liquor.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, had earlier acceded to this request, withdrawing the interim bail without substantial examination of the necessity for custodial interrogation after the petitioner had joined the investigation. This led Karam Singh to approach the High Court, challenging the legality of the Sessions Court's order.
Justice Vashisth asserted that once recovery is effected, custodial interrogation cannot be justified solely to gather further information, especially when the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. The judgment emphasizes the duty of investigating officers to employ lawful methods and professional expertise rather than coercive means to collect evidence and trace other involved parties.
The High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to examine the propriety of the Sessions Court's order. It concluded that the cancellation of interim bail was unsustainable in law, reinstating the bail granted initially on May 15, 2026, and setting aside the order dated May 30, 2026.
The petitioner is required to continue cooperating with the investigation, adhering to the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that custodial interrogation should not be used as a tool for coercive information extraction when cooperation is evident and recovery has been achieved.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail - Interim anticipatory bail cannot be withdrawn solely on the ground of custodial interrogation to elicit further information, particularly when recovery has already been effected, and the petitioner has duly joined the investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2915352
