2026 (3) TMI 301 - SCH - Indian Laws

Protection against self-incrimination bars compulsory custodial interrogation; anticipatory bail ordered where accused cooperates with investigation.

Anticipatory bail was granted for an owner of a vehicle not named in the FIR who has joined and is cooperating with the investigation into alleged ... Entitlement to Anticipatory bail - seizure of 710 bottles of cough syrup - protection from custodial interrogation when accused cooperates with investigation - right against self-incrimination. Entitlement to anticipatory bail and protection from custodial interrogation where the accused has joined and is cooperating with the investigation. - HELD THAT: - The appellant was not named in the FIR though the seized vehicle belonged to him. After interim protection was granted, the appellant joined the investigation and is cooperating. The State may complete its investigation but cannot compel the appellant to incriminate himself or insist upon acts that would violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. In the factual matrix, there are no grounds at present for custodial interrogation; continued cooperation within legal limits is a condition for relief. The Court therefore exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail subject to the appellant continuing to cooperate with the investigation and complying with the conditions prescribed by law. The High Court order denying anticipatory bail is set aside; the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail and, if arrested in relation to the FIR, shall be released on bail on such terms as the trial Court may fix, subject to continued cooperation and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed on the limited ground that the appellant, having joined and cooperating with the investigation, is entitled to anticipatory bail and protection from custodial interrogation, subject to continued cooperation and the trial Court fixing appropriate bail conditions. Issues: Whether the appellant, who was not named in the FIR but is owner of the vehicle from which 710 bottles of cough syrup were seized and who has joined and is cooperating with the investigation, is entitled to anticipatory bail and protection from custodial interrogation.Analysis: The proceedings concern allegations under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 13 and 5 of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950, and the appellant was earlier granted interim protection on condition of joining and cooperating with the investigation. The State has a duty to complete its investigation in accordance with law but cannot compel the appellant to surrender his constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The appellant has joined and is cooperating with the investigation; there are no presently disclosed grounds necessitating custodial interrogation.Conclusion: Relief in the form of anticipatory bail is granted in favour of the appellant; the impugned High Court order dated 16.09.2025 is set aside and, if arrested in relation to the FIR, the appellant shall be released on bail forthwith on terms to be fixed by the trial court. The appellant shall comply with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.