The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Vinay Kumar Gupta in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, despite his refusal to surrender his mobile phone to the investigating authorities during the probe into alleged narcotics-related offences. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasised that while an accused must cooperate with investigation, cooperation does not extend to compelling a person to provide material that would violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court observed that the investigating agency could not insist that the applicant incriminate himself by surrendering his mobile device, and that compelling such surrender would amount to a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights and protections against self-incriminating evidence. The bench held that it was for the State to complete the investigation in accordance with due process, but it could not demand the accused provide evidence that could incriminate him personally, thereby distinguishing between lawful cooperation and compulsory self-incriminatory disclosure.
The factual backdrop of the case involved a First Information Report alleging offences under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Sections 13 and 5 of the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950, in connection with the seizure of 710 bottles of cough syrup from a vehicle that was owned by the applicant. Although the complainant vehicle was traced to Gupta, he was not initially named in the FIR. After the High Court at Jabalpur denied anticipatory bail, Gupta approached the Supreme Court, which on December 15, 2025 granted him interim protection from arrest, subject to his joining and cooperating with the investigation. Subsequently, while the applicant had presented himself to assist the investigation, he did not hand over his mobile phone when requested by the investigating agency. The State argued before the Supreme Court that this refusal constituted non-cooperation and that custodial interrogation was necessary to secure the mobile device for forensic examination.
However, the Supreme Court rejected such contentions, holding that mere refusal to surrender a mobile phone could not be equated with non-cooperation where the accused had otherwise joined and assisted the investigation. The Court reiterated that cooperation with investigation does not mean waiving constitutional safeguards, and that self-incriminating conduct cannot be compelled in the guise of cooperation. The bench observed that no grounds were made out at that stage for custodial interrogation of Gupta given his attendance before investigators and his ongoing cooperation. It was noted that if the appellant were arrested pursuant to the FIR in question, he shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may fix, thereby allowing the appeal against the High Court’s order and extending anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a significant pronouncement on the interplay between constitutional rights against self-incrimination and obligations to cooperate with criminal investigations, underscoring that investigative demands cannot override fundamental protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.