Custodial Interrogation Can’t Be Used To Extract Confession: Himachal Pradesh High Court
While granting pre-arrest bail to an accused person, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently said that custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract confession.The observations were made by Justice Satyen Vaidya while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner was praying for a pre-arrest bail in an FIR for offences under Section 408 and Section 34 of IPC. The FIR was registered by...
While granting pre-arrest bail to an accused person, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently said that custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract confession.
The observations were made by Justice Satyen Vaidya while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner was praying for a pre-arrest bail in an FIR for offences under Section 408 and Section 34 of IPC.
The FIR was registered by the employer of the petitioner alleging misappropriation of an amount to the tune of Rs.28,57,022 at his petrol station.
It was argued before the court that the transactions in the bank account of the accused were made at the instance and consent of the complainant and the accounts manager of the establishment. The accused further contended that during investigation, he had fully cooperated and provided the entire detail of accounts to the police.
The bench said that the case was registered on 19.11.2022, and the petitioner was admitted to interim bail on 23.11.2022. Since more than a month has elapsed since the registration of FIR and the petitioner has joined the investigation as and when required, the investigating agency already had sufficient time at its disposal to complete the investigation, the court added.
While perusing the available record, the bench further noted that as per the investigation report, a sum of Rs.2,45,645/- stands transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of the complaint enterprise, which prima-facie suggests that the bank account of complainant “Stan H.P. Enterprises” was receiving payments from the account of the petitioner.
"How and why there was no re-conciliation of the account of the Petrol Station, has not been explained. Had the petitioner intended to misappropriate the amount by depositing the same to his account, he would not have remitted any amount to the account of the Petrol Station," said the court.
Dealing with the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not disclosing the name of persons in whose account he has transferred the money, the court said that the contention does not appear to be justified for the reason that the bank transactions can be ascertained by the police from documentary evidence.
"As regards the allegation of money withdrawn by the petitioner from his account and the non-disclosure of identity of persons to whom it has been disbursed, those facts may not be so relevant for proving all the allegations levelled against petitioner. The investigation in a criminal case cannot be used as a recovery proceeding", the bench explained.
Finding the arguments of the respondent for seeking his custodial interrogation devoid of any merit, the court said
"I am of the considered view that no case for custodial interrogation of petitioner is made out. The tool of custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract confession. Such interrogation is permissible where the Investigating Agency is without any means to extract the facts. As noticed above, in the instant case the bank transactions can easily be ascertained through documentary evidence."
Allowing the petition, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail in case of his arrest.
Case Title: Rohit Chauhan Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 3
Coram: Justice Satyen Vaidya