JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The Petitioner, Vidya Nath, by this petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prays for grant of bail in case registered with Police Station, Enforcement, Dharamshala, District Kangra for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in terms of F.I.R. No. 2 of 2004 dated March 17, 2004. 2. The petitioner retired as Deputy Director of Agriculture and in the year 1999, was appointed as Member of the H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur ("Selection Board" for short). He retired from that Office in January, 2003. 3. According to the petitioner, he during his tenure as Member of the Selection Board, had interviewed more than twenty thousand candidates for various posts. With the change of the Government in the State, from one political party to another, several cases were registered regarding the working of the Selection Board. Petitioner is accused in two of such cases. He was released in case F.I.R. No.1 of 2004 after being in custody for two days. The petitioner was thoroughly interrogated by the authorities of the Enforcement Department during that period. 4. Recently, another case in terms of F.I.R. No. 2 of 2004 was registered and petitioner is named one of the accused. This case pertains to the selection of Lecturers (commerce) School cadre. Interview for these posts were held between November 29, 2001 to December 7, 2001. Petitioner was one of the Members who interviewed the candidates for the reserve posts against Ex-servicemen category. The petitioner, when he came to know that a case is being registered against him, approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail but the petition was disposed of as at that time no case was registered against him. The petitioner thereafter had to go out of the State to visit his relations and when he came to know that the authorities of the Enforcement Department are looking for him in the present case, he moved an application for the grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur which was rejected on May 22,2004. The petitioner surrendered to the Police authorities on May 25, 2004 at 11.00 a.m. That the petitioner was thoroughly interrogated by the Investigating Agency till May 26, 2004. The petitioner, however, was taken ill and was admitted in Dr. The petitioner surrendered to the Police authorities on May 25, 2004 at 11.00 a.m. That the petitioner was thoroughly interrogated by the Investigating Agency till May 26, 2004. The petitioner, however, was taken ill and was admitted in Dr. Rajindera Prashad Government Medical College and Hospital Dharamshala on the night of May 26, 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the cases have been registered after more than 2 years for political reasons with the change of the Government. The petitioner maintains his innocence and claim that he has falsely been implicated. 5. Petitioner presently is in judicial custody. He moved an application for the grant of bail before learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur which was rejected on June 1, 2004. The bail petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not been "effectively interrogated in the case". Though it is the case of the petitioner that he was thoroughly interrogated after his remand to the Police and even earlier in case F.I.R. No. 1 of 2004, he was interrogated by the authorities of Police Station Enforcement even regarding the allegations made in this case. 6. According to the petitioner, nothing is to be recovered from him and no useful purpose will be served by his remaining in judicial custody, more so, when there is no apprehension that he will either tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by the conditions, which may be imposed by the Court for the grant of bail. 7. On June 4, 2004, when this petition came up for the first time, learned Additional Advocate General sought time to file reply and produce records. Reply, in spite of the orders of the Court, has not been filed. However, police report under the signatures of Superintendent of Police Enforcement, North Zone, Dharamshala was filed in the Court on the date of hearing. 8. According to the Police report, during the investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 4 of 2003, registered with Police Station Enforcement, North Zone, Dharamshala, pertaining to the irregularities/illegalities in the selection of Trained Graduate Teachers (Medical and non-medical), three hard disc were taken into possession from two computers used in the office of the former Chief Minister on June 2, 2003. These hard discs were sent for forensic examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Hyderabad. These hard discs were sent for forensic examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Hyderabad. Fifteen files were retrieved/imaged from the hard discs out of which nine files contained list of candidates for the posts in various Departments by different recruiting agencies, including the Selection Board. 1739 candidates, for various posts, pertain to the Selection Board". The data retrieved /imaged from the GEQD disclose list of 316 candidates for the post of School Cadre Lecturers. Inquiry/investigation regarding the selection of these posts was made. The investigation revealed that against the 32 posts of Lecturers (Commerce) School cadre, 93 candidates were called for interview from November 19, 2001 to November 28, 2001. Interview Board of which petitioner was member, was headed by the then Chairman S.M. Katwal. It transpires that the remarks about the performance of the candidates in interview was recorded by the Chairman, whereas, marks for interview were recorded by the petitioner and he also recorded the total of the marks in written examination and interview. The remarks recorded by the Chairman against the performance of various candidates were "Much below average", "below average", "just average", "average" etc. However, the marks awarded or recorded by the petitioner in the column of marks for interview, were not in consonance with the remarks recorded by the Chairman. The interview marks, according to the investigating agency, were recorded later and were guided by some extraneous factors other than merit. 9. Three instances have been noticed by the Investigating Agency in the report filed in the Court. Candidates bearing roll number 13431 though assessed as "above average" in the remarks column, was awarded nine marks in the interview out of 30 marks, whereas, candidate bearing roll number 12144 assessed as "average" was awarded 24 marks in the interview. In another case, a candidate bearing roll number 12807 assessed as "average" was given five marks in interview though candidate roll number 12850 assessed as "just average" was awarded 14 marks. In respect of another candidate bearing roll number 12398, nine marks were awarded in the interview but later on changed to nineteen marks. 10. It is the further case of the investigating agency that candidates for the 30 posts of Lecturers in Commerce were interviewed by a Committee from November 29, 2001 to December 7, 2001. In respect of another candidate bearing roll number 12398, nine marks were awarded in the interview but later on changed to nineteen marks. 10. It is the further case of the investigating agency that candidates for the 30 posts of Lecturers in Commerce were interviewed by a Committee from November 29, 2001 to December 7, 2001. The Interview Board was headed by the petitioner and entries in the Broad sheets were recorded by the petitioner. Some of the candidates were given 90% or more marks in interview, e.g., 27 marks out of 30 marks. One of the candidates 40836 was awarded 28 marks in interview, whereas, he had secured 107 marks in the written examination. Another candidate roll number 40872 was awarded 27 marks in interview though he has secured 109 marks in written examination. The average marks given in interview range from 10 to 20 except three candidates. The marks awarded to these candidates were exceptionally high. Three of the candidates though had secured 130, 130 and 131 marks respectively, but were only awarded 04,04 and 03 marks in the interview, which were comparatively low. 11. The contention is that the marks awarded were bereft of objectivity and were awarded for reasons other than merit. 12. It is admitted position that the petitioner surrendered before the Police on 25th May, 2004 and was arrested. He was produced next day before the learned Sessions Judge who remanded him to Police custody for three days but, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had to be admitted in Dr. Rajindera Prashad Government Medical College, Dharamshala on the night of 26th May, 2004 and his remand on the next day for further period of three days was obtained in absenetia but during this period too, he could not be interrogated as the condition of the petitioner aggravated and he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. 13. The bail is opposed on the grounds, as detailed in para 11 of the report of the Superintendent of Police, that of the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to misuse the liberty of the bail and the possibility of the "tampering with the evidence and the witnesses" cannot be ruled out. It will also "hamper the flow of evidence”. 14. It will also "hamper the flow of evidence”. 14. Thus, so far the investigating agency is concerned, the bail application is opposed only on the ground that the petitioner may possibly tamper with the evidence and witnesses and thus his release may adversely affect the investigation. 15. In so far this apprehension of the investigating agency is concerned, appropriate conditions can be imposed on the petitioner so that he does not misuse the liberty of bail. 16. Faced with the situation, learned Advocate General contended that the petitioner, in view of his illness, could not be interrogated even for a minute. I have perused the police record. The contention is mis-placed. The record shows that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating agency at 12.00 Noon on 25th May, 2004. Even though the arrest is shown at 5.00 p.m. but he was interrogated from 12.00 Noon to 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on that date as recorded in the zimnies. 17. It is well settled that a person would be in police custody not merely when police choose to arrest him formally. It includes any kind of detention or even surveillance, restriction or restrain by the Police. Thus where accused in a case is not formally arrested at the time when he surrenders but for all practical purposes, he would be in police custody till he is sent to judicial custody or released on bail. After his formal arrest, the petitioner was sent for medical check up at Dharamshala. On the next day, the petitioner was interrogated from 9.00 a.m. onwards till he was taken to the Court of learned Sessions Judge at 3.30 p.m. The contention that the petitioner was not interrogated at all is without any foundation. 18. Learned Advocate General then submitted that the investigating agency intends to move an application for the police remand of the petitioner for his further interrogation as his custodial interrogation is necessary. Apart from the fact that the bail petition is not opposed on this ground in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record certain press clippings. The news item shows that the Superintendent of Police Enforcement, who heads the investigation, informed the Press that the petitioner was arrested and he is being interrogated "effectively". The news item shows that the Superintendent of Police Enforcement, who heads the investigation, informed the Press that the petitioner was arrested and he is being interrogated "effectively". The Superintendent of Police Enforcement, who was present in the Court, admitted that this news item was never contradicted by him or any other Officer. 19. Learned Advocate General submitted that the investigating agency intends to move learned Sessions Judge for the police custody of the accused from the judicial custody. It is true that a person held in judicial custody, if circumstances justify may be transferred to police custody or vice versa within a period of 15 days as provided under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that can only be done for sufficient grounds for such change of custody as observed in Kosanapu Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1994 Cri.L.J. 2121. 20. In view of the custodial interrogation of the accused on 25th and 26th of May, 2004, as noticed earlier, no justifiable grounds are made for the transfer of the petitioner from judicial custody to police custody. Merely because the investigating team intends to get some* unspecified information from an accused is no ground for custodial interrogation. It is admitted position that the Police is in possession of all the relevant records of the Board including the broad sheets. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Indeed custodial interrogation cannot be used to induce incriminating confession. The Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (2) Supreme Court Cases 569, observed : "Custodial interrogation exposes the suspect to the risk of abuse of his person or dignity as well as distortion or manipulation of his self-incrimination in the crime.” 21. A balance has to be maintained between the need of the society to see that offender is punished and the right of an accused against self-incrimination and to remain silent during the interrogation. The Apex Court in "Kartar Singh" observed: "..."When the Police interrogates a suspect, they abuse their authority having unbridded opportunity to exploit this moral position and authority inducing the captive to confess against his better judgment. The very fact that the person in authority puts the questions and exerts pressure on the captive to comply. The Apex Court in "Kartar Singh" observed: "..."When the Police interrogates a suspect, they abuse their authority having unbridded opportunity to exploit this moral position and authority inducing the captive to confess against his better judgment. The very fact that the person in authority puts the questions and exerts pressure on the captive to comply. Silence on the part of the frightened captive seems to his ears to call for vengeance and induces a belief that confession holds out a chance to avoid torture or to get bail on a promise of lesser punishment. The resourceful investigator adopts all successful tactics to elicit confession". 22. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, including the fact that the petitioner has been interrogated at considerable length during the course of investigation, the fact that the police record does not show any genuine requirement of the petitioner for custodial interrogation, the fact that nothing is to be recovered from him, the further fact that the petitioner has no access to the record of the Board as he retired long time back and weighing the right of liberty of the petitioner on the one hand, interest of the investigation on the other, and without commenting on the merits of the materials on record, I allow the petition and direct that the petitioner be released on furnishing bounds in the amount of rupees 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions: The petitioner shall: (a) make himself available for the purpose of investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; (b) not influence the witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence; (c) not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; (d) Leave his address with the Superintendent of Police Enforcement North Zone Dharamshala where he would be available, if required. 23. The petitioner if mis-uses his liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. 24. Any observations made herein above shall not be construed to be any reflection on the merits of the case. The records of the investigating agency be returned. Copy Dasti. -