High Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail, Rules Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary Where Cooperation is Met

In a significant ruling regarding the parameters of investigative cooperation, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has made absolute the anticipatory bail of a petitioner involved in a job fraud case. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, presiding over the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana , underscored that once a petitioner has fulfilled the requested investigative requirements, the necessity for custodial interrogation is effectively negated.

Case Background: The Railway Job Allegations

The case stems from FIR No. 388, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Kaithal , on September 26, 2023. The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, aged 44, was accused under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) .

The allegations center around a scheme to secure employment within the Railway Department . According to the complaint filed by Kulwinder Singh, two primary co-accused, Rajat and Guddi, accepted ₹10,00,000 under the pretext of facilitating a job. The petitioner was accused of inducing the complainant to participate in this arrangement. Throughout the legal proceedings, the petitioner maintained that no funds were directly paid to him, nor were such demands made by him personally.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s legal team argued that the petitioner was merely a relative of the co-accused and had no direct financial involvement. Crucially, the defense asserted that there was no evidentiary basis for conviction beyond the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Following an interim protection order granted on July 17, 2025, the petitioner successfully fulfilled the court’s mandate by joining the investigation and providing a voice sample as requested by the investigating officer.

In contrast, the State Counsel argued that despite the petitioner joining the investigation, his cooperation remained incomplete. However, when probed by the Court regarding the specific nature of the desired cooperation—particularly given that the subject had already submitted to voice sampling—the State failed to provide a satisfactory justification.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the discretionary power of the Court in weighing the necessity of custody against the progress of an investigation. Justice Vashisth’s observations during the proceedings highlight the court's stance:

• "However, on being asked as to what kind of cooperation is expected, once the voice sample has been given by the petitioner to the investigating officer, there is no satisfactory response from the learned State counsel."
• "Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute."

Legal Analysis and Decision

The Court’s decision acknowledges the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, under which the petitioner sought relief. The Court affirmed that while Section 482 of the BNSS grants the judiciary wide discretion, that discretion must be exercised to prevent the unnecessary deprivation of liberty once investigative interests are satisfied.

The High Court allowed the petition, making the ad-interim bail order absolute, subject to the petitioner’s continued willingness to join the investigation as required. A final safeguard was imposed: the petitioner must submit their passport (or an affidavit of non-possession) to the authorities within one week, failure of which would render the order void. This judgment reinforces the principle that custodial interrogation is not a procedural requirement for the sake of the process itself, but a tool for investigation that must be justified by the prosecution when challenged.