A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held so while setting aside a Gujarat High Court order that had rejected anticipatory bail sought by a retired school principal and his wife.

The appellants are husband (A1) and wife (A2). A1 was a Principal of Shri Secondary School, while A2 was President of the school's governing body. It is alleged that they tampered with the service record of A1 to change his date of birth from 19.06.1964 to 19.06.1965, which changed his date of retirement. It is also alleged that A1 thereby made unlawful gain at the cost of the public exchequer. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Appellants' plea seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the Gujarat High Court in June 2026. In August this year, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants should not be arrested, on condition that they cooperate with the investigation.

The Supreme Court perused the High Court's order, which had held as follows:

“in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only the applicant, but all other suspect/s is therefore imperative to unearth the truth. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.”

The bench expressed objection to the High Court's observation and stated as follows:

“We are of the firm view that it is not for the High Court to suggest any form of interrogation of an accused. This should be best left to the discretion of the investigating agency. By such sweeping observation that custodial interrogation of not only the applicant but all other suspects is imperative, the rights of other 'suspects' have been jeopardized. The High Court should avoid making such unnecessary observations.”

The Court also noted that the allegations against the appellants “are all based on documents” and observed that custodial interrogation was not necessary, noting that A1 is a senior citizen who has retired as Principal of school.

In the light of aforesaid, the bench set aside the High Court's order. It, thus, made absolute its interim order directing the appellants to continue cooperating with the investigation.

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, AOR; Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, Adv.; Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.

For Respondent: Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR; Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.