Custodial interrogation is not warranted for recovery of stolen property or apprehension of co-accused in theft cases.

The petitioner, an employee at the complainant’s shop, was accused of stealing bundles of handkerchiefs from a godown and selling them to other shopkeepers with the assistance of co-employees

An FIR (No. 401/2024) was registered under Section 381 of the IPC at PS Sadar Bazar

The petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest on July 5, 2024

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the investigation against him was complete, and other co-accused persons remained employed by the complainant without being arrested

The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the stolen goods and apprehend a co-accused

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly where the state seeks custodial interrogation for recovery of property

The Court primarily considered Section 381 of the IPC concerning theft by a clerk or servant of property in possession of the master

The Court emphasized the judicial principle that investigation must be a process to reach the criminal from the crime, rather than merely collecting material to connect a proposed suspect to a crime

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that the necessity for "custodial interrogation" must be grounded in reasonable requirements of the investigation, noting that the recovery of stolen property is not the primary justification for depriving an individual of liberty via custodial measures

The Court observed that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to pursue essential lines of inquiry, such as whether the case involved a trademark dispute (given the use of the "Nokia" brand on the handkerchiefs) or tax evasion; instead, the investigation focused solely on connecting the petitioner to the alleged theft

Justice Kathpalia critiqued the State’s justification for custodial interrogation—namely, the recovery of stolen handkerchiefs and the arrest of a co-accused—stating these do not constitute a "reasonable requirement" for such intrusive measures

The Court further noted the inconsistency in the prosecution's approach, as other accused employees had neither been arrested nor terminated from their roles

Consequently, the Court found no justifiable reason to deny the petitioner his liberty

It held that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount

The Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO