Failure To Disclose Information About Accomplices Can't Be Construed As 'Non-Cooperation With Investigation': Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that "non-cooperation in investigation” must be interpreted with precision and cannot be equated with the failure of the accused to disclose information about his alleged accomplices or for facilitating the recovery of bribe money.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul while allowing an anticipatory bail application in a corruption case, rejected the State's argument that the accused's evasive response, and the role played by the co-accused, coupled with the non-recovery of bribe money would amount to non-cooperation in the investigation.

"'Cooperation' involves joining investigation, providing truthful and relevant information, and assisting in uncovering facts within the knowledge of the accused, but it does not extend to compelling self- incrimination, extracting confessions, or using coercion," the Court said.

The judge added that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves, and any investigative methods violating this right are unlawful. 

The Court observed that the investigating agency must instead rely on independent and lawful methods to gather information rather than pressuring the accused to act against their constitutional safeguards.

It added further that insisting on custodial interrogation solely for self-incriminatory purposes is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.

The Court made it clear that in the present case merely because the petitioner had not provided information regarding the involvement and role played by the co-accused and had failed to get the bribe money recovered "cannot be a ground to decline his prayer for anticipatory bail and order his custodial interrogation as prayed for by the learned State counsel."

These observations were made while hearing an anticipatory bail plea under Sections 7 and 7- A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was an outsourced employee and his work was only restricted to the operation of the computers in the Municipal Corporation.

There was no audio or video recording of the petitioner either making any demand of extraneous consideration or accepting the same, he added.

State counsel contended that in pursuance of the Court's previous order, although the petitioner joined the investigation, he has failed to cooperate and has been evasive regarding the involvement and role played by the co-accused coupled with the non-recovery of bribe money.

Hence the state prayed for dismissal of the petition as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required.

After analysing the submissions, the Court opined that, “since the petitioner has complied with order dated 04.07.2024 and joined investigation, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.07.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.”

Title: Rajpal v. State of Punjab

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Ghai, Mr.Nikhil Thamman and

Ms.Malini Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr.Jasdeep Singh Gill, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Manjinder Bhullar, Advocate for the complainant.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 21

Click here to read/download the order