The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the failure of accused individuals to submit their mobile phones cannot be deemed as non-cooperation. Justice VRK Krupa Sagar emphasized that the investigation agency should not be deterred in gathering evidence and referred to constitutional protections against self-incrimination in its decision.
Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently clarified a critical legal point regarding the cooperation of accused individuals with law enforcement during investigations. In a ruling made by Justice VRK Krupa Sagar, the Court stated that the failure of an accused to submit their mobile phones to the investigating agency cannot be termed as non-cooperation. This statement came during the granting of bail to former Member of Parliament N Suresh Babu and businessman Avutu Srinivasa Reddy. The case was connected to an alleged attack by workers of the YSR Congress Party on a Telugu Desam Party (TDP) office in 2021.
Background of the Case
The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused had failed to produce their mobile phones for investigation. The police contended that these devices were essential to recover WhatsApp chats and gather Google timelines relevant to the alleged crime. However, the High Court emphasized that the investigation agency should not feel impeded in securing further electronic evidence simply because they could not retrieve the mobile phones from the accused.
Read Also: “Public Trust in the Judiciary: A Pillar of Democracy” – Justice BR Gavai
Legal Principles
In its decision, the Court referred to a Delhi High Court ruling, which stated that an accused cannot be coerced into revealing the passwords of their devices or online accounts. This protection falls under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination.
Justice Sagar noted,
“In the light of the above principles, the failure of accused in submitting their mobile phones while in custody cannot be termed as non-cooperation from the accused.”
This assertion underlines the importance of constitutional protections for individuals, even in the context of criminal investigations.
Bail Grant Decision
The Court acknowledged that the material presented indicated some presence of the accused outside the TDP office. However, it pointed out that the prosecution needed to justify their continued detention. The State’s argument was that other accused individuals were still at large and that a larger conspiracy needed to be uncovered. The Court countered that these contentions indicated that the investigation concerning the present accused had already been completed.
The ruling noted, “They were arrested on 04.09.2024 and were remanded to judicial custody on 05.09.2024, and for the last one month, they have been in judicial custody.” It further highlighted that about 34 accused in this case had already been released on bail either by the High Court or the trial court.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the occupation and residences of the petitioners, along with their availability over the years, indicated that they were unlikely to evade the legal process. Therefore, it ruled,
“All these facts being considered in the light of the nature of the crime committed, this court finds any continued detention unnecessary. Hence, prayer is granted.”
This landmark ruling not only emphasizes the rights of the accused but also sets a precedent regarding the requirements for cooperation with law enforcement agencies during investigations. The High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between law enforcement duties and the constitutional rights of individuals.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
