Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed in an FIR registered under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B1 of Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., allowed the application stating that failure to provide information about the co-accused and aid in recovery of bribe money was not a ground for denial of bail plea and did not amount to non-cooperation with the investigation. The Court also stated that co-operation with the investigation did not extend to compelling self-incrimination, extracting confessions, or using coercion.
Background
Allegedly, the accused was outsourced by the Municipal Corporation for the operation of computers. The co-accused was caught red-handed in the act of bribery, and a diary was recovered from him wherein it was revealed that the bribe money was also to be shared with the accused. The accused contended that there was no audio or video recording of him either making any demand of extraneous consideration or accepting the same.
In the order dated 04-07-2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Court had directed the accused to join the investigation. Subsequently, the present petition was filed.
The State contended that although the accused had joined the investigation, he failed to cooperate as he was evasive regarding the involvement and role played by the co-accused and regarding the non-recovery of bribe money.
Analysis
The Court reiterated that “non-cooperation in an investigation” must be interpreted with precision and could not be equated with the failure of the accused to disclose information about his alleged accomplices or for facilitating the recovery of bribe money. ‘Co-operation’ involved joining the investigation, providing truthful and relevant information, and assisting in uncovering facts within the knowledge of the accused, but it did not extend to compelling self-incrimination, extracting confessions, or using coercion.
The Court stated that Article 20(3) of the Constitution protected individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves, and any investigative methods violating this right were unlawful. The Court added that “The investigating agency must instead rely on independent and lawful methods to gather information rather than pressuring the accused to act against their constitutional safeguards. Insisting on custodial interrogation solely for self-incriminatory purposes is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.”
In the case at hand, the Court held that the anticipatory bail application could not be denied, and custodial interrogation could not be ordered merely on the ground that the accused did not provide information qua the involvement and role played by the co-accused and failed to get the bribe money recovered.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition, holding that the accused had complied with the order dated 04-07-2024. The order dated 04-07-2024 was made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[Rajpal Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 30774 of 2024, decided on 07-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai, Nikhil Ghai, Nikhil Thamman and Malini Singh
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General Jasdeep Singh Gill and Manjinder Bhullar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 61(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023