The Supreme Court has held that it is not for a High Court to suggest or mandate the manner in which an accused should be interrogated, observing that the question of custodial interrogation should be left to the discretion of the investigating agency.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a husband-wife duo accused of allegedly tampering with the service records of the husband to alter his date of birth and thereby extend his period of service.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Visavadar Police Station, District Junagadh, Gujarat, under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The appellants were husband and wife. The first appellant had served as the Principal of Shri Secondary School, Vekaria, while the second appellant was the President of the governing body of the school.
The prosecution alleged that the appellants had tampered with the service record of the first appellant by changing his date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965. According to the allegation, this resulted in a change in his date of retirement and enabled him to obtain an unlawful financial benefit at the cost of the public exchequer.
The Gujarat High Court had rejected their applications for anticipatory bail on June 16, 2026.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued notice on August 25, 2026 and directed that the appellants should not be arrested, subject to their cooperation with the investigation.
After considering the affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court noted that the allegations against the appellants were primarily based on documents.
The Court therefore concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary. It also took note of the fact that appellant No. 1 was a senior citizen who had already retired as the Principal of the school.
The Supreme Court also took exception to a particular observation made by the Gujarat High Court while rejecting anticipatory bail.
The High Court had observed that “custodial interrogation” of the applicant as well as other suspects was imperative to unearth the truth.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and made a significant observation regarding the limits of judicial directions concerning investigation.
“It is not for the High Court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused.”
The Bench further held that the question of custodial interrogation should be left to the discretion of the investigating agency.
The Court observed that the High Court's sweeping observation that custodial interrogation of the applicant and all other suspects was imperative had also jeopardized the rights of other suspects.
The Supreme Court consequently cautioned High Courts against making such unnecessary observations.
The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's order dated June 16, 2026 and made its earlier interim protection order dated August 25, 2026 absolute.
The appellants were directed to continue cooperating with the investigation.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case: Miteshgiri @ Mulrajgiri Sevagiri Goswami & Anr. v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15785/2026)
Decision Date: September 30, 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth AOR, Mr. Vicky B. Mehta Adv., Mr. Suraj Singh Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal AOR, Mr. Adarsh Dubey Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy