Courts Should Not Suggest Interrogation Of Accused, Let Investigating Agency Decide: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has objected to Courts suggesting interrogation of an accused clarifying that such decisions should be left to be taken by the investigating agency.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and AS Chandurkar made this observation while setting aside the order of the Gujarat High Court which said that custodial interrogation of all the accused persons in a case of tampering with service records was necessary.

The Supreme Court was approached by an husband and wife who were the Principal in Shri Secondary School, Vekaria, and the President of the governing body of the said school, respectively.

Allegedly, they tampered with the service record of the accused-husband to change the date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965 thereby resulting in change in his date of retirement. Because of such change in dates, the husband was alleged to have made unlawful gain at the cost of the public exchequer.

An First Information Report (FIR) was registered with the Visavadar Police Station, District Junagarh under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).

After an application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's attention was drawn to paragraph 11 of the impugned order of the High Court which reads thus:

"11. In view of the above decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant"

Justice Bhuyan led bench opined it is not for the High Court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused.

"This should be best left to the discretion of the investigating agency. By such sweeping observation that custodial interrogation of not only the applicant but all other suspects is imperative, the rights of other ‘suspects’ have been jeopardized. The High Court should avoid making such unnecessary observations," Justice Bhuyan led bench has said.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the High Court order dated 16.06.2026 and made its order allowing relief to the accused absolute with the further direction that they shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Case Title: MITESHGIRI @ MULRAJGIRI SEVAGIRI GOSWAMI & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Bench: Justices Bhuyan and Chandurkar