"Draconian": Punjab & Haryana High Court Denounces Practice Of Opposing Bail When Accused Refuses To Testify Against Self

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has called out the "draconian" practice of opposing bail because accused refused to testify against self and observed that it cannot be continued.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The single bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, "It is the responsibility of the investigating officer to actively seek out such corroborative material and build a case based on objective findings rather than mere admissions, which may be influenced by coercion, fear, or misunderstanding. Opposing the release of an accused on bail solely because he refuses to testify against himself is a draconian practice that, in good conscience, cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by this Court."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Tarun Singla while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Vikas Bhardwaj.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Complainant in the present case is a person of financial fortitude and was an owner of a big construction company. It was alleged by him that the jurisdictional police authorities in Gurugram are acting under his influence and have falsely implicated number of persons, who are having clean antecedents, purely in the case of theft of vehicle in question. Further, it was contended that the stolen vehicle was recovered from the shop of co-accused Sonu and apart from disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no concrete evidence against the Petitioner.

It was further contended that under the garb of joining the investigation, several persons, who are not associated with theft of the vehicle in question, were harassed and victimized. The Investigating Officer, on the whims and fancies of the Complainant and under his influence, subjected the accused persons to lengthy interrogation and the questions, which are unrelated to the investigation of the case in hand, have been put to them with regard to their educational qualifications, marriage and number of children. It was averred that the Petitioner is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset stated that it has been categorically stated that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required and that the Petitioner has not answered the questions put to him and thereby, he has failed to cooperate during the investigation. It also pointed out specific assertion made regarding the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner in order to unearth the entire sequence of events, ascertain the real culprit behind the theft and ascertain the extent of similar crimes committed by him.

The Court stated that it has observed a curious trend, where the jurisdictional police authorities deem the bail applicant to be uncooperative merely because he would not confess to his guilt while stressing that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India categorically provides protection against self-incrimination.

It cited Supreme Court's ruling in Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) wherein it has categorically been held that there is a distinction between the physical evidence and testimonial evidence.

"While there is no bar in directing the accused to give any physical evidence such as his fingerprints, blood sample, signatures specimen etc., he cannot be expected to make selfinculpatory statements as that would amount to testimonial compulsion," the Court re-iterated.

The Court was of the opinion that under the garb of non-cooperation during investigation, the investigating agency is compelling the petitioner to make self-incriminating statements.

"It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation by gathering all relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish the truth of the matter. Relying solely on self-incriminating statements made by the accused is not only legally unsound but also contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair trial. It is the responsibility of the investigating officer to actively seek out such corroborative material and build a case based on objective findings rather than mere admissions, which may be influenced by coercion, fear, or misunderstanding. Opposing the release of an accused on bail solely because he refuses to testify against himself is a draconian practice that, in good conscience, cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by this Court," the Court stated.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Jatinder Singh vs State of Haryana (2025:PHHC:059853)

Click here to read/ download Order