Granting bail does not signify the end of the investigative process. According to Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, police agencies are permitted to pursue their investigation until the report in final form or charge sheet is formally submitted to the court. This provision leads to an important consideration regarding the rights and obligations of individuals who have been released on bail: can such individuals be called in for additional interrogation or questioning while the investigation is still active?

The answer lies in the understanding of the legal framework governing bail and the investigative powers of the police. Even after bail has been granted, the accused may still be required to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. It is crucial to recognize that the granting of bail does not equate to a dismissal of the case or the termination of the police's duty to investigate thoroughly.

According to Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the investigating police are empowered to interrogate individuals who are familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding a case. This section also allows for the examination of the accused; however, the investigating officers are barred from forcing the accused to provide testimony that could be self-incriminating.

This provision aligns with the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which upholds the right against self-incrimination. However, the current legal provisions do not explicitly state whether a person who has been granted bail by the court can be compelled by the investigating police officer to appear for interrogation in relation to the case.

When a person is granted bail, they are required by law to cooperate with the investigation. Failure to meet this obligation can result in the revocation of their bail under Section 483 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Courts have ruled that failing to comply with requests-such as ignoring a summons, not assisting in police investigations, breaching bail conditions, failing to appear at the police station, intimidating witnesses or the complainant, or tampering with evidence-constitutes a violation of these conditions.

Therefore, it is crucial for individuals to take these responsibilities seriously, as non-compliance may result in significant legal repercussions, often based on the investigating police officer's report to the court that granted bail, which could lead to re-arrest and additional legal proceedings.

In the landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand in 1977, the Supreme Court of India made a significant assertion that bail should be considered the standard, while imprisonment should be seen as an exception. This case served to reinforce the fundamental principle of personal liberty, clarifying that an individual granted bail is still required to engage in the legal process.

In 2021, the case of Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh set an important legal precedent when the Court determined that an individual cannot be arrested multiple times for the same offence while under investigation. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the police's authority to call in and question the accused as part of their investigative responsibilities.

Another important ruling came from Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh in 1994, where the Supreme Court shed light on the risks of police overreach. It stressed that interrogations must be conducted in a reasonable and justifiable manner, conveying that summoning the accused persons or individuals who are out on bail merely for the purpose of harassment or undue pressure infringes upon their constitutional rights.

Together, these cases form a significant part of Indian legal discourse, shaping the delicate balance between the rights of individuals and the powers of law enforcement. They ensure that personal liberty is upheld while allowing the police to carry out their essential functions effectively.

Courts ought to provide explicit guidelines to steer police interactions with individuals on bail, guaranteeing compliance with the principles of proportionality and necessity. It is crucial to educate law enforcement personnel on constitutional and human rights to avert potential abuse. Additionally, employing technology like virtual questioning or electronic documentation can reduce physical interactions and the risk of harassment. Frequent judicial reviews conducted by magistrates can help ensure that investigations align with legal and procedural protections.

When the court grants anticipatory bail, it does not prevent the police from calling the accused for assisting in investigation of the case; instead, it generally requires the accused to cooperate and be available as needed by the investigating officer. Failure to comply with this requirement may prompt the investigating officer to request the cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Should the officer gather enough evidence to pursue a criminal case against the accused, they will not arrest them immediately; rather, they will release them on bail, even if the charge is non-bailable, as long as the accused follows the conditions established by the court.

The police must thoroughly review and consider the bail conditions set by the court before summoning an individual for interrogation. This practice is essential for several reasons. It ensures legal and procedural compliance. When a court grants bail, it typically imposes specific conditions, such as restrictions on movement or prohibitions against contacting certain individuals, including witnesses. It is imperative for police officers to ensure that their summons do not unintentionally violate these conditions.

Adherence to bail conditions is vital to avoid legal violations. Summoning someone in a manner that contradicts their bail terms may be viewed as an overreach of police authority, potentially leading to legal challenges and increased scrutiny from the judiciary. Furthermore, it is important to respect individual rights, particularly the right to liberty. Individuals released on bail have a temporary freedom from detention, and failing to honour the bail conditions could undermine this right, as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additionally, many bail conditions are designed to protect the accused from undue harassment, and neglecting to verify these conditions can result in unnecessary inconvenience resulting in legal consequences for the investigating police officers.

Preserving the public's trust in the judiciary is essential for upholding the integrity of the legal system as a whole. Courts meticulously evaluate various factors before issuing bail orders, ensuring that their decisions are rooted in careful deliberation and justice. When these orders are ignored or when actions taken by law enforcement agencies are inconsistent with the courts' rulings, it can significantly undermine the credibility of the judiciary. Such discrepancies not only diminish the authority of the courts but also have the potential to erode public confidence in law enforcement. This, in turn, can lead to a broader scepticism towards the entire legal framework, highlighting the importance of adherence to judicial decisions in fostering a trustworthy and effective legal system.

If the individual granted bail engages in any actions that violate the bail conditions, it may lead the investigating police officers to file applications with the relevant court for the cancellation of bail. This can complicate the investigation and hinder the administration of justice.

To uphold best practices, police should verify bail orders for any restrictions. If bail conditions are unclear, consulting legal teams or seeking clarification from the court granting bail is recommended for compliance. Clear communication with the accused is crucial; when issuing a summons, police must provide specific details about the interrogation's date, time, and location, ensuring no conflicts with bail conditions.

Utilizing written summons under Section 179 of the BNSS promotes transparency. If bail conditions obstruct the investigation, police can request court modification to balance the investigation's needs with the rights of the accused. This approach maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system.

No male under the age of fifteen or over sixty, as well as women, individuals with mental or physical disabilities, and those suffering from acute illness, should be mandated to attend any location other than their place of residence.

To ensure legal protection, certain investigative police officers request authorization from the relevant judicial magistrate to interrogate an accused individual who has been granted bail by the court in the specific case, and it is customary for courts to approve such requests for interrogation.

Conclusion:
An individual who has been released on bail by the court may be summoned by police for interrogation, as long as this action adheres to the principles of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality and does not violate any conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the accused person. Although the legal framework does allow for such calls for interrogation, it is essential to recognize that constitutional protections and judicial oversight are in place to safeguard the rights of the accused.

These protections serve as a crucial check against potential abuses of power. Therefore, achieving a harmonious balance between the need for effective investigations and the preservation of individual freedoms is fundamental to maintaining a just and equitable criminal justice system. This balance ensures that while the police can perform their duties in pursuing justice, the rights of those accused are not compromised or overlooked in the process. Therefore, some police officers seek judicial approval to interrogate bail-granted suspects legally.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565