Supreme Court: High Court Should Not Suggest Custodial Interrogation Of Accused while rejecting anticipatory bail application

We are of the firm view that 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. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.15785/2026)

MITESHGIRI @ MULRAJGIRI SEVAGIRI GOSWAMI & ANR. Vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT 

Dated: September 30th, 2026.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The two appellants before us are husband and wife.

While appellant No.1 was a Principal in Shri Secondary

School, Vekaria, appellant No.2 was the President of the

governing body of the said school.

4. Allegation against the appellants is that of

tampering with the service record of the first appellant

to change the date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965

thereby resulting in change in his date of retirement.

Further allegation is that because of such change in

dates, appellant No.1 has made unlawful gain at the cost

of the public exchequer. In this connection, a First

Information Report (FIR) was registered being CR

No.11203070250475 of 2025 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 (for short, ‘BNS’).

5. Application for anticipatory bail filed by the

appellants was rejected by the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter) vide the

order dated 16.06.2026.

6. This Court by order dated 25.08.2026 had issued

notice and passed an interim order to the effect that

appellant should not be arrested in connection with the

aforesaid case subject to them cooperating with the

investigation.

7. Pursuant to such order, State of Gujarat has filed

affidavit which we have perused.

8. Considering the nature of allegation against the

appellants which are all based on documents, we are of

the view that custodial interrogation of the appellants

is not necessary. That apart, appellant No.1 is a senior

citizen having retired as Principal of the school.

9. However, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 11

of the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.06.2026

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.

10. We are of the firm view that 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.

11. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the

High Court dated 16.06.2026 and make our order dated

25.08.2026 absolute with the further direction that

appellants shall continue to cooperate with the

investigation.

12. Appeal is accordingly allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

......................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

......................J.

(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)

NEW DELHI;

September 30th, 2026.

Print Page