Limits on judicial interference in investigation: subordinate courts cannot direct interrogation in their presence and must preserve neutrality.

A subordinate criminal court cannot use inherent powers reserved to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to involve itself in investigation or require interrogation in its presence. The statutory scheme keeps investigation within the executive domain, and judicial intervention that makes the court a participant in the investigative process risks undermining neutrality and blurring the separation between adjudication and investigation. Consistently with the principle that investigation should proceed unhindered except in exceptional cases, the bail order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits before the competent court without influence from the earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail order passed by the subordinate criminal court was liable to be set aside on the ground that the court had improperly involved itself in the investigation and thereby acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers inherent powers only on the High Court and not on subordinate courts. The statutory scheme keeps investigation within the executive domain, and the court cannot direct that interrogation or enquiry of an accused be conducted in its presence. Such involvement blurs the separation between adjudication and investigation, making the court a participant in the investigative process and undermining judicial neutrality. The order also reflected a departure from established principles that investigation should proceed unhampered, save in exceptional cases where interference is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The bail order was rightly set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits before the competent court without being influenced by the earlier order.

---