Accused Not Stating Self-Incriminatory Facts, Refusing To Confess Is Not Non-Cooperation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of an accused not responding to the questions asked by the investigating officer on dotted lines or refusing to make any confession cannot be termed as non-cooperation.
Justice Arun Monga said that even the refusal by an accused to say anything incriminating against him cannot be called non-cooperation.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by an accused seeking anticipatory bail in an extortion case. The FIR was registered for offences under Section 384 (extortion), 385 (putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The complaint was filed by a contractor who entered into a written agreement with a man to demolish and reconstruct his house. However, he alleged that during the construction, the accused, along with others attempted to extort Rs. 20 lakhs by filing complaints to halt the construction.
It was alleged that the complainant paid Rs. 10,000 on the spot and Rs. 20,000 later. The transactions were audio and video recorded and submitted to the police.
The trial court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused in July last year.
Granting relief to the accused, Justice Monga said that the complainant was opposing the bail merely for satisfaction of his ego. The Court added that the allegations against the accused were a matter of trial.
On the prosecution's argument that the accused gave evasive answers, the Court observed:
“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.”
It said that the accused has the right to defend himself, adding that he had answered all the questions, whether or not evasive, and the same was a matter of trial. If held guilty the law will take its own course, it said.
The Court said that the accused had extended his cooperation and nothing was required to be recovered from him, concluding that it was not a case of any preventive custody.
“The Investigating Officer shall cause formal arrest of the applicant and release him forthwith subject to furnishing personal bond with one surety of the equivalent amount to his satisfaction in terms of the conditions and provisions as contained under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS, if not already done so,” it said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Jatan Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Seema Sharma, Ms. Rekha, Mr.Garv, Ms.Vanshika Adhana and Mr.Kartikeya Baroua, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State, Mr.Mobeen Akhtar and Mr.Afsar Nai, Advocates
Title: MOHD KAMRAN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1144