Custodial interrogation unwarranted when seized electronic evidence is already available and the accused has had sufficient custody.

Further custodial interrogation was found unnecessary where the accused had already undergone five days of custody and the seized electronic devices and data were already with the investigating agency. The Court noted that the agency could confront the accused with that material even in judicial custody, subject to permission from the trial court, so additional police custody was not justified. The refusal to grant further custody was therefore sustained, and the revision failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether further custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary and whether the order refusing police custody deserved interference in revision.

Analysis: The accused had already undergone five complete days of custodial interrogation. The seized electronic devices and data were already in the investigating agency's possession, and the agency could confront the accused with the material even in judicial custody after obtaining appropriate permission from the trial court. On these facts, the Court found no necessity for extending custodial interrogation.

Conclusion: Further custodial interrogation was not warranted, and the refusal to grant additional custody was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision application failed on merits and the order declining further custody was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Further custodial interrogation is unwarranted where the relevant material is already seized and the accused has undergone sufficient custody for effective confrontation with that material.

---