Cannot brand silence, refusal to confess as non-cooperation: HC

Silence in a police station, the Delhi High Court has said, cannot be mistaken for defiance. Nor can an accused’s refusal to confess be branded as obstruction. In a sharp rebuke to the prosecution’s insistence that the accused in an extortion case had been “evasive,” Justice Arun Monga made it clear that the criminal justice system could not stretch cooperation to mean self-incrimination.

“I am of the view that merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions of the Investigating Officer on the dotted lines or has not made any confession and or stated anything incriminating against him, the same cannot be termed as non-cooperation,” the judge observed, while hearing a plea for anticipatory bail.

The case arose from a contractor’s complaint that during the reconstruction of his house, the accused and others attempted to extort Rs 20 lakh by filing complaints aimed at halting the work.

An FIR followed, under Sections 384, 385, 120B and 34 of the IPC. A trial court had earlier dismissed the accused’s bail plea in July last year.

Granting relief, Justice Monga said the complainant’s persistent opposition to anticipatory bail appeared to be “merely for satisfaction of his ego”. The Court stressed that the accusations levelled were matters for trial, not grounds to deny bail protection. The Court concluded that the accused had in fact extended cooperation, with nothing to be recovered from him, and therefore preventive custody was unwarranted.

Directing his immediate protection, Justice Monga ordered, “The IO shall release him forthwith subject to furnishing personal bond with one surety of the equivalent amount to his satisfaction...”