The Delhi High Court held that an accused person’s refusal to make a confession or to state self-incriminatory facts, including not answering certain questions of the investigating officer, does not amount to “non-cooperation.” Justice Arun Monga delivered this view when considering a petition for anticipatory bail in an extortion matter. The FIR under consideration included offences under Sections 384, 385, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a contract between a contractor (complainant) and another individual to demolish and reconstruct a house; the complainant alleged that during the course of the work, the accused and others tried to extort Rs. 20 lakh from him by filing complaints to stall construction. It was claimed that payments of Rs. 10,000 on the spot and Rs.20,000 later were made; audio-video recordings of these transactions were submitted to the police.
Initially, the trial court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused. However, on reconsideration, the High Court granted relief to the accused. It observed that the complainant’s opposition to bail appeared motivated more by ego than by legal merit. The Court noted that the accusations against the accused were matters that needed to be tested at trial rather than being decisive for bail. On the contention from the prosecution side that the accused had given evasive answers, the Court held that merely because an applicant does not respond to certain questions of the investigating officer, does not make confessions, or does not state incriminating facts, that does not equate to non-cooperation. The Court stressed that an accused has the right to defend himself. It pointed out that whether answers are full or evasive is a matter to be explored during trial.
Justice Monga found that there was sufficient cooperation on the accused’s part: he had answered all the questions put to him, even if not fully or in the manner the investigating officer desired, and nothing was required to be recovered from him. The Court observed further that this was not a case warranting preventive custody. Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the Investigating Officer should formally arrest the applicant (if that had not already been done) and upon doing so, release him immediately, subject to furnishing a personal bond with one surety. The order referenced provisions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (Bail and Non-Bailable Services?), to the satisfaction of the officer. The case is titled Mohd Kamran v. State NCT of Delhi.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.