Custodial interrogation may proceed despite high blood pressure where medical care can be provided during custody.

The rejection of remand based solely on high blood pressure was unsustainable because no other ailment or imminent threat to life was recorded, and such a condition did not by itself bar custodial interrogation. Medication and medical assistance could be provided during custody, while the duty to take reasonable care of the accused's health and safety remained applicable. Custodial interrogation was therefore permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the remand application on the ground of the respondent's high blood pressure was sustainable, and whether custodial interrogation could still be authorised.

Analysis: The only medical basis noted for refusing remand was that the respondent's blood pressure was high. No other ailment or imminent danger to life was recorded. Such a condition did not, by itself, bar custodial interrogation, particularly when medication and medical assistance could be provided during interrogation. The duty to take reasonable care of the accused's health and safety also operated during custody.

Conclusion: The refusal of remand was unsustainable and custodial interrogation was permitted.

---