Cooperating with investigation doesn’t mean accused is expected to make self incriminating statements: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified that cooperating with an investigation doesn’t mean an accused person must make statements against themselves. This protection applies even when bail is granted on the condition of cooperation.

“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 court said.

This statement was made during a criminal appeal hearing by a Division Bench consisting of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar. The appellant, a Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, was seeking anticipatory bail. He was implicated in a case of accepting a bribe to approve a proposal that led to an inflated cost estimate for converting a Municipal Corporation building into a ‘green building.’

The court had initially granted the appellant interim protection, provided he cooperated with the investigation. Upon reviewing the case, the court noted the appellant’s participation in the investigation. However, the state opposed the appellant’s pre-arrest bail, arguing in a counter affidavit that the appellant had not fully cooperated with the police, had not returned the bribe money, and had not fully disclosed all the facts of the case. The state argued that these factors necessitated the appellant’s custodial interrogation.

The court disagreed with the state’s argument, stating that the appellant’s actions could not be construed as non-cooperation. The court emphasized that it could not consider the appellant’s behavior as grounds for denying his appeal for pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the court granted the appellant bail, stating that it was only concerned with detention during the investigation stage. The court found no justification for the appellant’s custodial interrogation. However, it was made clear that the appellant must continue to cooperate with the investigating officer.

In a similar case, Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana, the same bench reiterated that participating in an investigation does not require making self-incriminating statements, which appeared to be the reason the state sought the appellant’s custody.