The Delhi High Court has clarified that an accused’s refusal to make self-incriminating statements or admit guilt during investigation cannot be treated as non-cooperation.
Justice Arun Monga made the observation while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in an extortion case registered under Sections 384, 385, 120B, and 34 of the IPC.
The case stemmed from a complaint by a contractor who had entered into an agreement for demolition and reconstruction of a house. The complainant alleged that the accused, along with others, attempted to extort ₹20 lakh by filing complaints to obstruct the construction. He claimed to have paid ₹10,000 initially and another ₹20,000 later, with both transactions allegedly recorded in audio and video form.
A trial court had dismissed the anticipatory bail plea in July last year. However, the High Court granted relief, noting that the complainant’s opposition to bail appeared to stem more from personal animosity than legal grounds.
Addressing the prosecution’s argument that the accused gave evasive replies, the Court observed:
“Merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions of the Investigating Officer on the dotted lines or has not made any confession or stated anything incriminating against him, the same cannot be termed as non-cooperation.”
The Court emphasized that an accused has the right to defend himself and that his responses, whether satisfactory or evasive, would be assessed during trial. Since nothing was required to be recovered from the accused, the Court held that preventive custody was unwarranted.
The order directed that the accused be formally arrested and immediately released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, in line with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
