Custodial Interrogation Is Not Mandatory Merely Because Offence Is Murder: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court’s ruling that custodial interrogation is not mandatory merely because the offence alleged is murder, along with relevant legal principles and case laws—presented clearly
⚖️ Custodial Interrogation Not Mandatory Merely Because Offence Is Murder – Bombay High Court
🔹 1. Context and Legal Issue
Murder is one of the most serious offences under Indian criminal law (Section 302 IPC).
Police often seek custodial interrogation (police custody) of the accused in such cases, arguing that the seriousness of the offence justifies it.
However, the Bombay High Court has clarified that the gravity of the offence alone is not sufficient reason to grant custodial interrogation.
Custodial interrogation must be justified on facts, not just on the nature of the charge.
🔹 2. What Is Custodial Interrogation?
Refers to interrogation of an accused while in police custody, after being arrested.
It is different from judicial custody (jail), where the accused is under court supervision.
Police must seek custody under Section 167(2) CrPC, and it can be granted only if the magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for investigation.
🔹 3. Bombay High Court's Observation
The Court held that:
“Merely because the offence is grave or is punishable with death or life imprisonment, it does not automatically entitle the prosecution to seek police custody.”
Investigation needs must be shown, such as:
Need to recover the weapon of offence,
Need to trace accomplices,
Need to establish motive or chain of events.
If the accused has already cooperated or the investigation is nearly complete, custodial interrogation may be denied, even in a murder case.
🔹 4. Relevant Supreme Court & High Court Case Laws
1. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
Landmark judgment where SC held:
“Arrest and custody are not meant to be routine... An accused can be interrogated even without arrest.”
Custody must not be mechanical—it must be based on necessity, not the seriousness of the charge alone.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Established guidelines against custodial torture.
Stressed that personal liberty is paramount, and custodial interrogation must not be abused.
3. C.B.I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141
Supreme Court held that police custody can be granted only during the first 15 days after arrest.
Beyond that, it must be judicial custody, unless justified exceptionally.
4. Sanjoy Chattopadhyay v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta HC)
Reiterated that even in murder cases, custody must be supported by investigative need, not merely the charge of murder.
5. Yogesh Mittal v. State of Delhi (Delhi HC)
Bail was granted in a murder case as no compelling need for custody was shown.
🔹 5. Legal Principles Affirmed
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Seriousness ≠ Custody | Gravity of offence alone is not sufficient to seek police custody. |
| Necessity Rule | Police must justify the need for custodial interrogation with specific grounds. |
| Protection of Liberty | Custodial interrogation interferes with personal liberty, so courts must balance both interests. |
| No mechanical arrest or custody | Each request must be evaluated on case-specific facts, not general assumptions. |
| Judicial scrutiny required | Magistrates must record reasons before allowing police custody. |
🔹 6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Offence involved | Murder (Section 302 IPC) |
| HC Observation | Custodial interrogation not automatic in murder cases |
| Key Requirement | Must show specific necessity for police custody |
| Constitutional Link | Article 21 – Right to personal liberty |
| Supporting Case Laws | Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Anupam J. Kulkarni |
| Implication | Protects from misuse of custody; reinforces due process |
🔹 7. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that custodial interrogation cannot be granted solely based on the nature of the offence—even in heinous crimes like murder. What matters is whether there’s a clear, investigative necessity for police custody.
This safeguards the accused’s constitutional rights, ensures that custody is not misused for coercion or harassment, and maintains judicial oversight over police powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments