The court said in the recent order, “It is not in doubt that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use the same as a shield. At the same time, it cannot be denied that a great deal of humiliation and disgrace are attached to the arrest.”
NEW DELHI: On Monday (18th March): The Delhi High Court held that when an accused is cooperating with an investigation and is not likely to abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided, as a great deal of humiliation and disgrace are attached to arrest.
READ ALSO: Kerala High Court: Only Gynaecologists Allowed for ‘Sexual Assault Survivor Examinations’
Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the case, highlighted that custodial interrogation aims to help investigations, not punish suspects. He also stressed that bail shouldn’t be used for settling financial disputes that are more suited for civil courts.
The case involved allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating investigated by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, considering their cooperation and low risk of fleeing.
“It is not in doubt that an order for the grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use the same as a shield. At the same time, it cannot be denied that a great deal of humiliation and disgrace are attached to the arrest,” the court said in a recent order.
“In cases where the accused has joined an investigation, is cooperating with the investigating agency, and is not likely to abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided. The purpose of custodial interrogation is to aid the investigation and is not punitive,” the court stated.
“It is trite law that bail proceedings should not be utilised as means for recovery in monetary disputes, since recovery of money essentially falls within the realm of civil proceedings,” the court said.
“The complainants are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of their money or for compliance with the settlement arrived at between the complainants and the applicants,” the court added.
READ ALSO: Kannada Signboard Rule | Karnataka HC Halts Sealing of Shops Over This Rule
Since the police had already filed charges and there was no urgent need for arrest, the court decided against custodial interrogation. The court also reiterated the Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993) judgment by the Supreme Court of India.
In this case, the court awarded compensation to the family of a person who died in police custody due to torture. The judgment established the principle of state liability for custodial torture and emphasized the need for accountability and compensation in cases of custodial violence.
