Opposing Bail For Refusing To Incriminate Oneself Is A Draconian Practice | Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Theft Case Citing Article 20(3) Protection
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that compelling an accused to make self-incriminating statements under the guise of custodial interrogation is impermissible in law. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a vehicle theft case, noting that the maximum sentence prescribed under the relevant provisions was up to seven years and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The interim bail granted earlier was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to comply with conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 230 dated 25 November 2024, initially registered under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequently, offences under Sections 305 and 317(2) of the BNS were added, and Section 303 was deleted. The FIR was registered at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram.
An earlier order passed on 7 April 2025 by the Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In that order, the Court had directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, to verify the veracity of the allegations and the conduct of the investigating officer through an affidavit. This direction came in light of the petitioner’s contentions that the investigating officer had acted with malice and was influenced by the complainant, a person with considerable financial standing who owned a large construction company, M/s Karambir Rana Builders.
The petitioner alleged that several individuals, including himself, were falsely implicated despite having clean antecedents. It was further claimed that the stolen vehicle in question had been recovered from the shop of a co-accused, Sonu, and there was no material evidence against the petitioner apart from a disclosure statement.
The petition also referenced the conduct of the investigating officer, asserting that he had interrogated various individuals on irrelevant personal matters, such as educational background, marital status, and number of children. It was submitted that people who had executed bail bonds for co-accused Dhani Ram were also arrayed as accused without justification. Moreover, no notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS (formerly Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.) was issued to the petitioner.
In compliance with the Court’s order dated 7 April 2025, an affidavit was filed by Vikas Arora, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, which was placed on record. The status report submitted during the hearing on 7 May 2025 ran into 402 pages and asserted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary as he had not answered questions put to him during the investigation.
The State’s counsel confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and further stated that custodial interrogation was still sought on the ground that he had failed to cooperate.
The Court observed: “This Court has observed a curious trend, where the jurisdictional police authorities deem the bail applicant to be uncooperative merely because he would not confess to his guilt.”
Referring to constitutional protections, the Court recorded: “Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India categorically provides protection against self-incrimination, which reads as follows: ‘No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.’”
Quoting precedent, the Court cited the Constitution Bench judgment in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, stating: “Self-incrimination must mean conveying information based upon the personal knowledge of the person giving the information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge.”
The Court referred to further judgments, noting: “A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 and a Division Bench of this Court in Dewan Singh @ Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 17, have categorically held that there is a distinction between the physical evidence and testimonial evidence.”
Addressing the role of law enforcement, the Court stated: “It appears that under the garb of non-cooperation during investigation, the investigating agency is compelling the petitioner to make self-incriminating statements.”
Further, the Court recorded: “It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation by gathering all relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish the truth of the matter.”
It stressed: “Opposing the release of an accused on bail solely because he refuses to testify against himself is a draconian practice that, in good conscience, cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by this Court.”
The Court allowed the present petition and made absolute the order dated 07.04.2025, which had granted ad interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
It directed that the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.).
The Court concluded that all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Jatinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:059853
Case Number: CRM-M-19150-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
[Read/Download order]
