The Supreme Court has clarified that an accused person’s refusal to answer questions posed by the Investigating Officer (IO) does not automatically amount to non-cooperation. Courts cannot deny bail solely on that ground.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had refused anticipatory bail to the appellant even though it had granted bail to other co-accused in the same FIR.
The High Court denied relief on the ground that the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that failure to answer questions does not ipso facto establish non-cooperation.
The Bench also noted that the co-accused had already secured bail. Applying the principle of parity, the Court held that the appellant was equally entitled to anticipatory bail.
Reliance on Earlier Supreme Court Precedent
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, reported as 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 557.
In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that refusal to cooperate justifies denial of bail. The Court reaffirmed that an accused has the right against self-incrimination. It also clarified that an accused is not obliged to confess during interrogation.
The judgment in Tusharbhai made it clear that an Investigating Officer cannot insist on a confession as proof of cooperation.
Grant of Anticipatory Bail
The present case arose from allegations of trespass under a common FIR involving several accused persons. While the High Court granted bail to other co-accused, it denied anticipatory bail to the appellant.
The Supreme Court found no distinguishing factor that justified different treatment. It therefore allowed the appeal.
The Court directed that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail. The jurisdictional IO may impose appropriate terms and conditions. The Court also directed the appellant to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted.
Case Title and Appearances
The case is titled Shally Mahant @ Sandeep v. State of Punjab.
For the Petitioner(s):
Mr. Manav Bhalla, Advocate
Mr. Tushar Bathija, Advocate
Mr. Rupendra Chauhan, Advocate
Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondent(s):
Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Advocate-on-Record
Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocate
