8 March 2024 6:30 AM GMT
The Supreme Court observed that where the interim protection from arrest is subject to the accused's cooperation in the investigation, he/ she is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under threat of the State seeking the withdrawing of such protection.
“An accused, while joining investigation as a condition for remaining enlarged on bail, is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under the threat that the State shall seek withdrawal of such interim protection.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, was hearing a criminal appeal of a Junior Engineer (Electrical) attached to the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, seeking anticipatory bail. The appellant engineer was embroiled for taking a bribe to sign a particular proposal. The same enhanced the cost estimate for upgrading a Municipal Corporation's building to a 'green building.' The Corporation claimed that such exercise led to inflating of the tender value.
Initially, the Court had granted interim protection subject to the appellant's cooperation with the investigating agency. Following this, when the matter was taken up, the Court noted that the appellant had joined the investigation. At the same, the Court drew its attention to the reason as to why the State was opposing appellant's pre arrest bail. The counter affidavit filed by the State, inter-alia, stated:
“13. That the petitioner/accused had though joined investigation on dated 10.02.2024, as per order passed by this Hon'ble Court but the petitioner did not cooperate with the police nor got recovered the amount of bribe received by him nor disclosed the other facts of this case properly. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of petitioner/accused is required in the present case for thorough investigation.”
After perusing the same, the Court opined that this cannot be equated with the appellant's non-cooperation.
“We cannot treat the behaviour attributed to the appellant to be instances of non-cooperation justifying dismissal of his appeal for pre-arrest bail.”
After making the above-mentioned observations, the court concluded that at this stage, it is only concerned with detention at the investigation stage. Thus, finding no reason for the appellant's custodial interrogation, the Court granted him bail. While doing so, it was also made clear that the appellant shall continue to cooperate with the investigating officer.
The same bench made a similar observation in another case too. In Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana, dealing with a similar fact situation, the bench observed : "In our opinion, however, participation in the investigation does not entail making self-incriminating statements, which seems to be the reason for which the State wants him in custody."
Case Title : Bijender v State of Haryana
Citaiton : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 209