The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an accused person’s obligation to cooperate with an investigation cannot be equated with an obligation to furnish answers satisfying investigators. The Bench observed that failure to provide expected answers did not by itself amount to non-cooperation.
Justice Mandeep Pannu made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a woman accused in a cheating and forgery case registered in Faridabad district.
“Mere inability or failure of the petitioner to answer the questions cannot, by itself, be construed as non-cooperation with the investigation," Justice Pannu asserted. The court was examining a case where the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail had been declined primarily on the grounds that she had allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation and that her custodial interrogation was required.
Perusing the record, Justice Pannu noted that the principal reason assigned for holding that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation was that she did not furnish satisfactory answers to the queries put by the investigating agency regarding the person who had attested an impugned agreement to sell and the person who had appended signatures thereon.
The court observed that cooperation in investigation had to be understood as joining the investigation and making oneself available to the investigating agency. “An accused can certainly be required to participate in the investigation; however, she cannot be compelled to make statements or furnish answers which may be self-incriminatory or which are not within her knowledge," Justice Pannu observed.
The court added: “The obligation to cooperate with the investigation is distinct from an obligation to provide answers satisfying the investigating agency."
Referring to the facts before it, the court noted that the record did not indicate that the petitioner had failed to join the investigation pursuant to the interim protection earlier granted to her or that she had avoided appearance before the investigating officer whenever called upon to do so.
Justice Pannu further held that merely because the petitioner did not provide the answers expected by the investigating agency, the same would not necessarily justify an inference that she was not cooperating with the investigation.
The court added that the questions as to who attested the agreement to sell and who appended the signatures of a person thereon were matters which the investigating agency was otherwise required to investigate and establish on the basis of material collected during investigation.
“At least at this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner solely for the aforesaid purpose does not appear to be warranted," Justice Pannu held.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, particularly the fact that the petitioner had already joined the investigation pursuant to an earlier order granting interim protection, the court concluded that she deserved the concession of anticipatory bail.
Allowing the petition, the court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject to the statutory conditions envisaged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
