Custodial Interrogation: limited interim custody permitted where procedural safeguards were complied with and investigation necessitates it, while bail restored for the other accused.

Whether BNSS, 2023 arrest safeguards were complied with and whether bail should be set aside: SC accepted the High Court's factual finding that arrest memos, grounds of arrest and intimations to relatives were furnished and acknowledged, and upheld the High Court's setting aside of Magistrate-granted bail for one appellant. Whether custodial interrogation may be granted: SC found investigation incomplete and permitted narrowly tailored custodial interrogation and interim custody of appellant No.1 for specified short periods for investigational necessity, while restoring bail for appellant No.2 and directing cooperation with the investigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the safeguards under the BNSS, 2023 and related procedural requirements with respect to arrest (arrest memos, grounds of arrest and notice to relatives) were complied with such that bail granted by the Magistrate should be set aside; (ii) Whether custodial interrogation and interim custody for investigation can be granted in respect of appellant No. 1 despite the High Court having set aside the Magistrate's bail order.

Issue (i): Compliance of BNSS, 2023 safeguards and validity of setting aside bail.

Analysis: The Court examined the factual findings of the High Court that arrest memos containing authorization to arrest and grounds of arrest were furnished and acknowledged by the arrestees, and that intimations to a relative were given and acknowledged; the Magistrate had earlier granted bail observing non-compliance but the High Court recorded service and acknowledgment of the relevant documents and videography of proceedings. The Court found no procedural lapse established to the prejudice of the appellants warranting interference with the High Court's factual conclusion.

Conclusion: Insofar as compliance of BNSS, 2023 safeguards and the High Court's reversal of the Magistrate's bail order are concerned, the Court upholds the High Court's findings (resulting in denial of bail for appellant No. 1 and maintenance of the High Court order on procedural compliance).

Issue (ii): Grant of custodial interrogation and interim custody for appellant No. 1.

Analysis: The Court noted that the investigation remains incomplete and that the Union sought custodial interrogation of appellant No. 1 for investigational necessity; limited custodial interrogation was ordered for specified consecutive days with interim custody until a specified date and time, after which release and trial court conditions were mandated. The Court distinguished the position of appellant No. 2 (a student) and the custodial interrogation already undertaken in West Bengal.

Conclusion: Custodial interrogation and interim custody of appellant No. 1 are permitted for the specified short period; appellant No. 2 is restored to the bail order of the Magistrate and released.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: appellant No. 2 is granted relief (bail restored) while appellant No. 1 is denied continued bail and limited custodial interrogation and interim custody is permitted for investigative purposes; both appellants are directed to cooperate with the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution establishes factual compliance with arrest-related procedural safeguards and investigation necessitates limited custodial interrogation, courts may deny or set aside bail for the concerned accused and permit narrowly tailored interim custody while preserving the procedural protections required by law.

---