Supreme Court bars High Court from suggesting custodial interrogation of accused

The case concerns a criminal appeal by a husband and wife, accused of tampering with service records to alter a retirement date, challenging the High Court's rejection of their anticipatory bail application and its suggestion that custodial interrogation was imperative.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Miteshgiri @ Mulrajgiri and Sevagiri Goswami; Respondent: The State of Gujarat; Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

What the court decided

• The Court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary as the allegations are document-based and the primary appellant is a senior citizen.
• The Court criticized the High Court for suggesting that custodial interrogation of all suspects is imperative, stating this is for the investigating agency's discretion and jeopardizes the rights of other suspects.
• The High Court's order dated 16.06.2026 rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside.
• The interim order dated 25.08.2026 (prohibiting arrest subject to cooperation with investigation) is made absolute.
• The appellants are directed to continue cooperating with the investigation.

Also in the document

• The Court explicitly stated that it is not for the High Court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused.
• The Court noted that the High Court's observation jeopardized the rights of other 'suspects' in the case.
• The final order was passed on September 30, 2026.