P&H High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Excise Case, Says Custodial Interrogation Cannot Be Used To Extract Information After Recovery
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Punjab Excise Act, holding that custodial interrogation cannot be justified merely to extract further information once recovery has already been effected and the accused has cooperated with the investigation.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "Once the recovery stood effected, the plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not, by itself, justify the cancellation of interim anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information. It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a fair and effective investigation by utilizing lawful means, professional expertise, and assistance of other members of the investigating team to collect evidence and trace the persons involved, if any."
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR, registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.
Earlier, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner on May 15, 2026, observing that custodial interrogation was not indispensable and directing him to join the investigation.
Pursuant to the order, the petitioner joined the investigation on May 19, 2026. The investigating agency acknowledged that recovery of 400 litres of 'lahan' and 10 litres of illicit liquor had already been effected.
However, the interim protection was subsequently withdrawn by the Sessions Court on May 30, 2026, on the ground that custodial interrogation was required to trace the source of the apparatus used for preparing illicit liquor and to identify intended buyers.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth noted that the Sessions Court had withdrawn interim protection without adequately examining whether custodial interrogation was genuinely necessary after the petitioner had already joined the investigation.
The Court observed that once recovery had been effected, inability of the police to trace further links could not justify withdrawal of anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation cannot be used as a tool for coercive extraction of information and it is the responsibility of the investigating agency to carry out a fair and effective investigation using lawful methods and professional expertise, it added.
The Court also emphasized that there was no allegation that the petitioner had misused the concession of interim bail.
Although the petitioner had not formally challenged the Sessions Court's order through a revision petition, the High Court invoked its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Upon examining the record, the Court held that the order dated May 30, 2026 withdrawing interim bail was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order withdrawing interim protection and made the interim anticipatory bail granted on May 15, 2026 absolute, subject to the conditions already imposed.
The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as required and comply with the statutory conditions.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Title: KARAM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB