'Accused Will Not Make Self-Incriminating Statements': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday (March 6th) that collaboration with an investigation does not necessitate the accused to provide self-incriminating statements. Consequently, a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar overturned a decision denying anticipatory bail to an individual (petitioner) accused of overestimating construction costs for a municipal corporation building.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

'Accused Will Not Make Self-Incriminating Statements': Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court emphasized that merely cooperating with a police investigation does not imply that the accused must provide self-incriminating statements, as highlighted in a recent ruling.

A panel comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar overturned a prior decision that had denied anticipatory bail to an individual (petitioner) accused of inflating construction costs for a municipal corporation building.

Addressing concerns about the accused’s purported lack of cooperation, the State contended that the appellant had not assisted in recovering the allegedly embezzled sum. However, the bench underscored that involvement in the investigative process does not necessitate the disclosure of self-incriminating information.

The court remarked-

“In response to our query about the nature of such non-cooperation, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the appellant as an accused was not helping out for recovery of the sum allegedly paid to him as a bribe. In our opinion, however, participation in the investigation does not entail making self-incriminating statements, which seems to be the reason for which the State wants him in custody.”

The individual in question faced allegations of exaggerating the construction expenses for a ‘green building’ intended for the Sonepat Municipal Corporation.

On December 5, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his plea for anticipatory bail, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon scrutinizing the available evidence, the apex court determined that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was unnecessary for the investigation.

“There is no exacerbating circumstance present that would warrant the appellant’s detention during the investigative phase … Consequently, we overturn the High Court’s decision to deny pre-arrest bail to the appellant,”
-the Court decreed.

As a result of the successful appeal, the trial court was instructed to grant bail to the accused, subject to conditions it deems appropriate. Furthermore, the accused was instructed to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.