Non-Discovery Of Incriminating Material Does Not Mean Non-Cooperation By Accused: Supreme Court

While granting anticipatory bail to an accused, the Supreme Court recently observed that mere non-discovery of incriminating material is not an indicator of non-cooperation on the part of the accused.

"Merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-co-operation on the part of accused," said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Court was dealing with a case where the appellant-accused was roped in based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, from whom recovery was made. Interestingly, the appellant was booked in a case earlier as well based on statement of co-accused, where he was granted anticipatory bail.

In June, when the Supreme Court issued notice on the appellant' plea (challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of anticipatory bail), it granted him interim protection from arrest, subject to his joining investigation as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer.

The State subsequently filed a counter-affidavit. It did not dispute that the appellant was booked based on a confessional statement of a co-accused. However, it alleged non-cooperation, as during questioning, he said that he had thrown his mobile phone in the river.

Considering the rival contentions, the Supreme Court observed on August 20,

"It is not the case that the appellant did not join investigation...Otherwise also...it is not stated that any effort was made to trace out the mobile number of the appellant and collect the call detail records or that any raid was carried to find out whether he is in possession of any incriminating material. In such circumstances, and having regard to the fact that earlier also the appellant was similarly made an accused and was accorded similar protection, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by making the interim order absolute..."

The relief was made subject to the appellant cooperating with the investigation and furnishing bail bonds before the trial court, alongwith an undertaking that he shall not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Case Title: JUGRAJ SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB, Criminal Appeal No. 3640/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Click here to read order