Custodial Interrogation Cannot Be Used to Extract Information After Recovery Is Complete: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Anticipatory Bail
Case Name: Karam Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 04 June 2026
Citation: CRM-M-32933-2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once recovery has already been effected and the accused has joined the investigation, anticipatory bail cannot be withdrawn merely because the investigating agency seeks custodial interrogation to obtain further information regarding other alleged participants or sources of procurement. The Court observed that custodial interrogation cannot be used as a means to extract information and that investigators must rely on lawful investigative methods rather than coercive custody.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda granted interim anticipatory bail after observing that questions regarding ownership and possession of the premises required investigation and that custodial interrogation was not indispensable for effective investigation.
Pursuant to the interim protection, the petitioner joined the investigation. The investigating officer subsequently acknowledged that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor had already been effected. However, the prosecution sought custodial interrogation on the ground that further inquiry was required to identify the persons who supplied the apparatus used for manufacturing illicit liquor and the persons to whom the liquor was allegedly intended to be sold.
Accepting this submission, the Sessions Court withdrew the interim protection and dismissed the anticipatory bail application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth examined both the interim and final orders passed by the Sessions Court and found that the reasons relied upon for withdrawing protection were legally unsustainable. The Court observed that once the recovery had already been made and the petitioner had complied with the direction to join investigation, the inability of the investigating agency to identify other persons allegedly connected with the offence could not justify cancellation of interim anticipatory bail.
The Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is not an investigative shortcut and cannot be justified merely because the police wish to obtain additional information. Investigating officers are required to gather evidence through lawful investigation, professional expertise, and independent inquiry. The Court categorically observed that custody cannot be used as a mechanism for employing coercive methods to extract information.
Another significant factor noticed by the Court was the complete absence of any allegation that the petitioner had misused the concession of interim bail or failed to cooperate with the investigation. The impugned order withdrawing protection did not record any such finding.
The High Court further invoked its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 442 BNSS) and held that the order withdrawing interim protection suffered from legal infirmity warranting interference.
Decision: Allowing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the portion of the Sessions Court’s order withdrawing interim anticipatory bail and restored the protection earlier granted to the petitioner. The interim anticipatory bail granted was made absolute, subject to compliance with the conditions already imposed and the petitioner’s continued cooperation with the investigation whenever required by the investigating agency.