Custodial Interrogation and Anticipatory Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Protection Against Self-Incrimination
Introduction
In the matter of Jatinder Singh v. State of Haryanai, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (‘The High court’) dealt with a significant issue concerning the scope and misuse of custodial interrogation in cases involving anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’). The Court examined whether an accused’s refusal to confess or provide self-incriminating information during investigation could be treated as non-cooperation, justifying custodial interrogation. The decision is a timely reaffirmation of the constitutional protection under a. 20(3) and draws a sharp line between lawful investigation and coercive practices employed by law enforcement agencies.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Jatinder Singh, was implicated in FIR No. 230 dated 25.11.2024, initially registered under s. 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and later modified to ss. 305 and 317(2). The FIR, registered at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram, pertained to the alleged theft of a vehicle. Notably, the vehicle was recovered from the premises of a co-accused, and the petitioner was named as an accused four months after the registration of the FIR purportedly based only on a disclosure statement.
The petitioner contended that the inclusion of his name was mala fide and influenced by the complainant, a powerful builder. He was granted interim anticipatory bail by the Court on 07.04.2025 and subsequently joined the investigation. Despite this, the police insisted that custodial interrogation was required as he had not cooperated by admitting his involvement. A detailed status report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, claimed the petitioner’s non-cooperation and asserted that he had failed to answer key questions. Hence, this Petition.
Held
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Petitioner’s refusal to make self-incriminating statements during the investigation could not be construed as non-cooperation, and such a stance by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) undermines constitutional protections granted to the accused.
It was further emphasized that the a. 20(3) of the Constitution of India is an inviolable right, which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. It observed that the investigating authorities had adopted a flawed approach by treating the petitioner’s silence or denial as obstruction, solely because he did not confess to the alleged crime. Therefore, it was categorically held that such refusal cannot be a valid ground to justify custodial interrogation.
Referring to the landmark decision in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghadii, the Court reiterated the legal distinction between testimonial and physical evidence. While the State may legitimately collect physical evidence such as fingerprints or signatures, it cannot compel the accused to provide personal testimonial admissions that would amount to self-incrimination. This principle was also reinforced by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in Selvi v. State of Karnatakaiii, which clearly demarcated the limits of permissible investigative compulsion.
The High Court furthermore observed that the Respondent’s demand for custodial interrogation aimed more at forcing a confession than genuine investigation. It emphasized that fair investigation requires independent evidence, not compelled admissions. Terming such practices “draconian” and unconstitutional, the High Court noted that the Petitioner faced offences punishable up to seven years, had clean antecedents and was not served prior notice under s. 35(3) of the BNSS.
Finding no grounds to deny bail, the interim anticipatory bail earlier granted on 07.04.2025 was made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down under s. 482(2) of the BNSS.
Our Analysis
The High Court’s decision serves as a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination enshrined in a. 20(3) of the Constitution. By rejecting the State’s demand for custodial interrogation based solely on the petitioner’s refusal to confess, the Court underscored that criminal investigations must be rooted in objective evidence not driven by a compulsion to secure confessions.
Drawing upon key precedents such as Kathi Kalu Oghad (Supra) and Selvi v. State of Karnataka (Supra), the Court rightly distinguished between legally admissible physical evidence and constitutionally impermissible testimonial compulsion. Its critique of the investigative practice of treating silence as non-cooperation is both timely and principled.
Importantly, the ruling aligns anticipatory bail jurisprudence under the BNSS with enduring principles of liberty, fairness, and restraint. As such, it stands as a valuable precedent reinforcing that procedural rights and constitutional protections must remain central to the administration of criminal justice—particularly within the context of evolving legal frameworks.
Authored by Ascend Legal Editorial Team. The opinions expressed are personal and do not constitute any legal advocacy.
