Accused Not Making Confession Or Stating Self-Incriminating Facts Not Non-Cooperation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an accused person not making a confession or stating self-incriminatory facts during the course of investigation cannot be called non-cooperation.

The Court was considering a Bail Application in a case registered under Sections 384, 385, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "Qua the argument of learned APP that the applicant has given evasive answers, I am of the view that merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions of the Investigating Officer on the dotted lines or has not made any confession and or stated anything incriminating against him, the same cannot be termed as non-cooperation."

The Applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Jatan Singh, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Dalal.

Facts of the Case

The case pertained to extortion with the aid of MCD complaints. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the FIR is completely silent on any allegation of threat or fear being caused to the complainant, which is an essential element of the offence of extortion. He alleged that the Complainant and his associate are stated to be part of a builder mafia engaged in constructing unauthorized buildings.

The Counsel submitted that the property in the FIR was mentioned in the list of unauthorized constructions in the PIL filed by the Applicant. He further submitted that the present complaint appears to have been lodged in retaliation to the PIL suggesting collusion between the Complainant and the Police.

The Counsel also averred that the Applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and his earlier non-appearance was due to the circumstances mentioned.

Reasoning By Court

The Court pointed out that the Applicant has joined the investigation and it was of the view that the complainant is opposing the bail merely for the satisfaction of his ego.

"Regarding his having filed Public Interest Litigations and/or with the oblique motives of extortion, the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate action in the PIL and it is not for this Court to comment on the same", the Court observed.

It stressed that the Applicant has the right to defend himself and he has otherwise answered all the questions, whether or not evasive, the same is again matter of trial. If found guilty, the law will take its own course.

"....whether the custody of the applicant is required, I am of the view that since the applicant has extended his cooperation and nothing is required to be recovered from him, it is not case of any preventive custody......The Investigating Officer shall cause formal arrest of the applicant and release him forthwith subject to furnishing personalbond with one surety of the equivalent amount to his satisfaction in terms of the conditions and provisions as contained under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS, if not already done so", the Court ordered.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohd. Kamran vs. State NCT of Delhi

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Jatan Singh, Advocate Seema Sharma, Advocate Rekha, Advocate Garv, Advocate Vanshika Adhana, Advocate Kartikeya Baroua

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Dalal

Click here to read/ download Order