Section 482 BNSS | Custodial Interrogation Not A Routine Measure Without Demonstrated Necessity: Telangana High Court

"Mere apprehension that custodial interrogation may facilitate tracing the money trail or enable examination of digital and financial material, without specific material indicating that such purposes cannot effectively be achieved through other investigative measures, may not, by itself, justify the petitioner’s arrest." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the necessity for custodial interrogation must be clearly demonstrated by the prosecution and cannot be treated as a routine or mechanical measure in investigations.

A bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed that when the evidence is predominantly documentary and electronic in nature, the mere requirement for further investigation does not automatically justify the denial of anticipatory bail.

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 9, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a money-circulation scheme operated by M/s. Indi Konnect Ventures Private Limited (IGNITE). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner facilitated the incorporation of the company and acted in conspiracy with other accused to induce investors through false promises of high returns. Despite a search of the petitioner’s premises yielding no incriminating material and the prior issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the state opposed bail on the grounds that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was required to trace diverted funds and examine his role in the larger conspiracy.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner’s role in facilitating the incorporation of a company, without evidence of direct inducement or receipt of funds, warranted custodial interrogation. The court was also called upon to determine if the issuance of a prior notice under Section 35(3) BNSS created a presumption against the necessity of immediate arrest.

Nature of Evidence and Custodial Necessity

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the petitioner relied largely on the statements of co-accused and documentary records, including banking and corporate filings. The bench noted that these materials are capable of being secured and analyzed without the need for physical custody of the petitioner. Emphasizing that custodial interrogation is not a substitute for standard investigative procedures, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner's presence was indispensable for discovery or recovery of evidence.

No Demonstrated Necessity for Arrest

The Court highlighted that the Investigating Officer had previously issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which inherently suggested that the agency did not initially perceive an immediate requirement for the petitioner’s incarceration. The judge noted that the prosecution provided no fresh material or changed circumstances to justify a departure from that assessment.

"The requirement of further investigation, by itself, cannot be equated with a demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation, particularly, where the relevant documentary, banking, corporate and electronic records are otherwise capable of being secured and examined by the investigating agency."

Individual Role and Presumption of Innocence

The court underscored that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and that no overt act of cheating or direct receipt of funds was attributed to him. Relying on the principles set forth in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the bench stressed that the court must balance the gravity of the alleged organized crime against the individual’s role and the objective necessity of his arrest.

Conceding the seriousness of the economic offences involved, the High Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, imposing strict conditions to ensure the petitioner's cooperation. The petitioner is required to surrender, provide sureties, and appear before the Investigating Officer regularly to assist in the probe. The court clarified that the grant of bail is subject to cancellation should the petitioner attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, or if future investigation reveals a genuine necessity for custodial interrogation.

Date of Decision: 09 September 2026