Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 76 of 2015 registered for the offence under sections 379/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) Pursuant to order dated 08.09.2016, learned Spl. P.P was directed to take instruction from the Investigating Officer whether he proposes to have custodial interrogation of the petitioner upon which he produced supplementary case diary wherein there were thirteen questions for which he wants to custodial interrogation of the petitioner, which was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the petitioner was directed to address this Court regarding the aforesaid questions.
(3.) Assailing the submission of the learned Spl. P.P., learned counsel for the petitioner placed order dated 29.11.2014 of the Orissa High Court in "Binod Bihari Dash and Others v. State of Odisha" BLAPL No. 18130 of 2014 in which it has been held as under: "10..........Questioning initiated by law enforcement officer after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way is called "custodial interrogation". The Court has to strike a balance between individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. On one hand, the Court has to prevent harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of an accused, on the other hand it is to see that a free, fair and full investigation is not hampered in any manner. When an application for anticipatory bail or an accused is objected to by the State on the ground of necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court can scan the materials available on record and ask the State to satisfy as to in what way the custodial interrogation could benefit the prosecution. The satisfaction of the Court would depend upon several facts viz, the nature of offence, the stage at which the investigation is pending, the materials which could not be traced out by the Investigating Agency due to absence of custodial interrogation and the benefit which the prosecution would get on account of custodial interrogation of the accused. It cannot be stated that in a particular type of cases or for a particular type of accused, the custodial interrogation is mandatory. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No strait jacket formula could be laid down. When the accused makes out a case for anticipatory bail, it is not to be defeated by mere asking for custodial interrogation by the prosecution without satisfying the necessity for the same. Sometimes the custodial interrogation of suspects would give clue regarding criminal conspiracy and identify of the conspirators and it may lead to confession of guilt and recovery of the incriminating materials. Sometimes at the crucial stage of investigation, the custodial interrogation would be a boon to the investigating office. The person in custody likely to be interrogated has a right to remain silent. On some questions, he may answer and on some questions, he may remain silent or refuse to answer. Nobody can be compelled to answer to a particular question. No third degree method is to be adopted for eliciting any answer. It is illegal to employ coercive measures to compel a person to answer.";