Can’t Say That Accused Isn’t Cooperating Merely Because He Has Smart Responses; Interrogator Has To Be Smarter: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

The High Court further held that the interrogator has to be smarter in order to elicit the requisite information.

The High Court was considering an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS.

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, “Merely because an accused is smart in responding to the questions of the interrogator, it cannot be said that he is not cooperating in the interrogation. Nobody is under a duty not to be smart. It is the interrogator who has to be smarter in order to elicit the requisite information. It is nobody’s case that CBI apprehends that once granted anticipatory bail, the accused/applicant would flout the notice to join investigation or, much less, that he would flee.”

Senior Advocate Trideep Pias represented the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor Vikrant Pachnanda represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that one Lt. Col. Deepak Sharma indulged in corrupt and illegal activities by entering into a conspiracy with representatives of private companies dealing in defence manufacturing, logistics and exports. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant was that he was managing the India operations of a Dubai-based company and was in contact with Lt. Col. Deepak, so as to obtain his assistance for undue favours from Government departments and ministries. It was further alleged against the accused/applicant that, in lieu of illegal gratification, he conspired with the accused for obtaining certain approvals from the Ministry of External Affairs.

As per the prosecution, a sum of Rs 3 lakh was received by Lt. Col. Deepak towards illegal gratification, and that amount was recovered from him in the course of a raid conducted by the CBI.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that the main accused, Lt. Col. Deepak, had been released on bail, so the accused/applicant deserved parity, though the role ascribed to him was much lesser.

The bail application was opposed by CBI only on the ground that the accused/applicant had not been cooperating in the investigation.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the ground on which the anticipatory bail was opposed, that the accused/applicant would not cooperate in the interrogation, was vague and unacceptable. The Bench also laid emphasis on the fact that the interrogator has to be smarter to elicit the requisite information.

It was brought to the Court’s notice that the main chargesheet against the accused persons has already been filed, though according to the SPP, further investigation to file a supplementary chargesheet was being carried out.

Thus, in light of the overall circumstances, the Bench allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Bench also directed that in the event of the arrest, the accused/applicant would have to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO. “It is specifically directed that the accused/applicant shall join investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO and shall not in any manner try to tamper with the evidence”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Ravjeet Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2071)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Trideep Pias, Advocates Dhruv Gautam, Abhishek Tongar, Sarath Manari, Saloni Ambastha, Sakshi Jain

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocates Mukul Katyal, IO M. K. Pandey

Click here to read/download Order