Summary
An accused in a public-distribution food-grain misappropriation case obtained interim protection after depositing the alleged value, and was subsequently arrested and released on bail under the Court’s modified order. The investigating officer treated his denial of purchasing the grain as non-cooperation. The Court held that refusal to confess alone could not justify that conclusion and preserved liberty to seek cancellation for genuine investigative necessity.
Issues
- Whether refusal to confess amounted to failure to cooperate with investigation.
- Which court could consider further custodial interrogation and cancellation of bail.
Held
- Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination and coercive investigative methods. Custodial interrogation is not simply a means to obtain a confession; reiterating a denial does not by itself establish non-cooperation. (¶ 7)
- For genuine non-cooperation the State could approach the Sessions Court at Gondia. That court could consider the material already collected and pass appropriate orders if satisfied that custodial interrogation remained necessary to complete investigation. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Appeal disposed of with liberty to the State to approach the Sessions Court, Gondia, for appropriate orders upon genuine non-cooperation and a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation.