Refusal to self-incriminate not ‘non-cooperation’ for bail denial: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused’s refusal to make self-incriminating statements during investigation cannot be branded as “non-cooperation” to justify denial or withdrawal of pre-arrest bail.

Laying down the principle, Justice Manisha Batra observed: “The behaviour attributed to the petitioner cannot be considered as an instance of non-cooperation, justifying denial for grant of pre-arrest bail, since an accused, while joining investigation, is not expected to make self-incriminating statement under the threat that the State may seek withdrawal of the interim protection granted to him.”

The judgment is significant as the court has made it clear that anticipatory bail — a statutory shield against arbitrary arrest — cannot be converted into an investigative tool to coerce confessions. The Bench has further made it clear that “non-cooperation” in law must refer not to exercising the constitutional right against self-incrimination, but to refusal to comply with lawful investigative directions

The ruling came on a petition seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered at Meharban police station in Ludhiana under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that the petitioner’s brother, running immigration office, induced the complainant to part with Rs 11.5 lakh on the pretext of securing a visa and work permit for Romania.

Justice Batra observed that funds belonging to the complainant were not shown to have been transferred to the petitioner’s account and there was no allegation that he personally induced the complainant to part with money. The petitioner had already joined investigation pursuant to the High Court’s interim bail order of June 26.

Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that “non-recovery” of the alleged amount warranted custodial interrogation, the court asserted: “It is not the allegation that there was any inducement on the part of the petitioner qua the complainant for parting with money. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. So far as the non-recovery is concerned, mere non-recovery cannot by itself be a ground for denial of bail as has also been observed by the Delhi High Court”

Finding no justification for pre-trial incarceration, the Bench made the interim protection absolute, subject to compliance with conditions laid down in Section 482(2) BNSS, and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage without touching upon the merits of the case.