Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer, as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non-cooperation. “Not answering to the questions of the IO, would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.The bench set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which declined to grant an anticipatory bail to the accused on parity, while granting bail to other co-accused in a case arising out of the same FIR alleging an offence of trespass, merely because the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation. “…also the fact that the other co-accused have been already granted bail, we are of the considered view that appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.”, the court said. It may be noted that in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 557 the Supreme Court rejected the argument that refusal to cooperate justifies denying bail, reaffirming the accused's right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. The Court in Tusharbhai's case noted that “there would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime, and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation.” Accordingly, the Appellant was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional IO may deem fit to impose, and also on the condition that the appellant would appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason. The appeal was allowed.HeadnoteCriminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Non-Cooperation with Investigation – Scope of Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS – The Supreme Court held that the mere act of an accused not answering specific questions posed by the Investigating Officer (IO) does not automatically constitute "non-cooperation" with the investigation - Noted that if an accused has appeared before the IO pursuant to interim protection, the failure to provide specific answers is not a sufficient ground ipso facto to deny bail.Anticipatory Bail – Grounds for Grant – Civil Dispute and Parity – In a case involving alleged trespass and theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Supreme Court found the appellant entitled to anticipatory bail based on three key factors- i. The appellant appeared before the IO as directed by the interim protection order; ii. The nature of the dispute appears to be a civil matter regarding immovable property (possession based on an agreement to sell); iii. Other co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail, establishing a ground for parity – Appeal allowed. [Paras 6, 7]Cause Title: SHALLY MAHANT @ SANDEEP VERSUS STATE OF PUNJABCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 146Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Mr. Rupendra Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv.

Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers