Self-incriminating statements not expected to be made under the threat of interim protection cancellation: Supreme Court
Case title – Bijendar VS State of Haryana
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No(S). OF 2024 (Arising from SLP (Crl.)No(s). 1079/2024)
Order passed on – March 06, 2024
Quoram – Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Facts of the case
Bijendar is a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, Haryana. A complaint was filed against him alleging that he has taken bribe to sign the proposal to enhance the cost estimate for upgrading a building of the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, to a ‘green building’. The Municipal Corporation alleged that such an exercise by the appellant led to inflating the tender value.
The appellant filed an application before the High Court for the grant of an anticipatory bail in the present matter. But, his plea was rejected by the Court. Subsequently, the order was challenged before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in its order dated 05.02.2024 granted interim protection to the appellant on an obligatory condition that the appellant had to cooperate with the investigating agency.
Issue – Detention of the appellant at the investigation stage
Submissions on behalf of the State
The learned counsel for the State opposed the appellant’s plea for pre-arrest bail by filing a counter affidavit. The Counsel submitted that, though the appellant had joined the investigation as per the Court’s order, he neither cooperated with the police for the recovery of bribe amount nor disclosed the other facts of the case. Hence, he contended that a custodial investigation of the appellant was necessary for thorough investigation.
Court’s observation and order
The Court decided only on the issue of detention of the appellant at the investigation stage and did not test on the legality of the case instituted against him. The Court refused to treat the instances of non-cooperation on the part appellant as a justification for dismissal of the interim protection. The Court held that the accused on bail is not expected to make incriminating statements under the threat of withdrawal of interim protection.
The Court, in the absence of any aggravating factor refused to allow custodial interrogation and therefore, directed the appellant to continue his cooperation with the investigating officer during the period of investigation. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K