Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"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," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information, especially when the accused has already joined the investigation and recovery has been effected.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the inability of the investigating agency to ascertain the identities of third parties—such as suppliers of equipment or intended buyers of illicit liquor—does not constitute a valid ground for withdrawing interim protection.

The petitioner, Karam Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 61 dated May 3, 2026, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. While the Sessions Court of Bathinda initially granted him interim bail on May 15, 2026, it later withdrew this protection on May 30, 2026. The Sessions Court acted on the Investigating Officer’s submission that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify the persons from whom the petitioner allegedly procured distilling instruments and to whom the illicit liquor was to be sold.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure of an accused to provide information regarding the "link evidence" or third-party identities justifies the withdrawal of anticipatory bail after the accused has cooperated with the investigation. The court also examined whether it could exercise its revisional jurisdiction suo motu to correct the legality and propriety of the subordinate court's order dismissing the bail application.

Custodial Interrogation Cannot Be Used For Coercive Information Extraction

The High Court noted that the petitioner had duly joined the investigation on May 19, 2026, and a recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor had already been effected. The bench emphasized that once the physical evidence is recovered, the mere need to "elicit further information" about sources or buyers is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation.

Court Rejects Need For Custodial Interrogation Post-Recovery

The court was of the considered view that the inability of the investigating agency to trace the identities of suppliers or buyers "could not constitute a valid ground for withdrawal of the discretionary relief earlier granted to the petitioner." It underscored that custodial interrogation is not a tool to be handed over to the police simply because the accused cannot or does not provide specific leads that the agency should ideally establish through independent investigation.

"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."

Exercise Of Suo Motu Revisional Jurisdiction Under BNSS/CrPC

Addressing the procedural aspect, the High Court observed that to set aside the Sessions Court’s order, it would normally require the invocation of revisional jurisdiction. Invoking Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Court decided to examine the legality and propriety of the lower court's order suo motu.

Sessions Court Order Found Unsustainable In Law

The Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, had dismissed the bail application without undertaking any substantive examination of whether custodial interrogation was "genuinely necessary." Justice Vashisth pointed out that there was no allegation that the petitioner had misused the concession of interim bail. Consequently, the findings of the Sessions Court were deemed unsustainable.

"This Court is of the view that without exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court, observations and findings recorded by the Court of Sessions in its impugned order... cannot be examined thoroughly for the purpose of reversing, altering or modifying the same."

The High Court set aside the order dated May 30, 2026, and made the interim anticipatory bail granted on May 15, 2026, absolute. The Court directed the petitioner to continue joining the investigation as required and to abide by the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The ruling reaffirms that the discretionary relief of bail, once granted and complied with, should not be lightly withdrawn based on the investigative agency's administrative difficulties in tracing links.

Date of Decision: 04 June 2026