HC raps police for coercive bail tactics; seeks CP’s reply on treating bail as recovery tool
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that anticipatory bail cannot be converted to recovery proceedings. The assertion came as the Bench ruled that the “draconian practice" of holding an accused hostage for refusing to self-incriminate could not be allowed to continue unchecked. The police was also rapped for treating bail applicants as uncooperative for not confessing to guilt.
“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. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India categorically provides protection against self-incrimination,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted, while seeking an affidavit from Gurugram Commissioner of Police for virtually converting bail plea into recovery proceedings.
Justice Brar was hearing a plea filed by a man seeking anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered on June 16, 2024, at Sector 14 police station in Gurugram, under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioner was granted interim protection in November 2024 with a direction to cooperate with the police.
Justice Brar asserted the petitioner joined the investigation in compliance with the order. Meanwhile, the State, through a reply-affidavit filed by Old Gurugram Assistant Commissioner of Police Sanjay Kumar submitted that the petitioner was the prime accused. He had “allured and induced the complainant and her brother-in-law to part them with their hard-earned money, on the pretext of providing the latter with a job abroad.” It was further alleged that the petitioner’s complicity had been established based on documents recovered at his instance.
“However, it has further been stated that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigating agency as he has not caused recovery of the amount embezzled by him. As such, his custodial interrogation has been stated to be necessary,” Justice Brar asserted.
Rejecting this line of argument, Justice Brar asserted there was no bar on directing the accused to give physical evidence such as his fingerprints, blood sample, signatures specimen etc. But expecting him to confess to his guilt or produce evidence would amount to “testimonial compulsion.”
“It appears that the investigating agency is relying on the accused to present them with all the evidence against himself on a silver platter, instead of performing its statutory duty to investigate the case. It is unbecoming of the investigating agency to oppose the release of the accused on bail, solely because he refuses to testify against himself…. This Court cannot, in good conscience, allow such a draconian practice of holding the accused hostage, to continue unchecked.”
Before parting with the case, Justice Brar directed the Commissioner of Police to file his affidavit deliberating “as to whether the proceedings for anticipatory bail can be converted to recovery proceedings and whether an accused can be compelled to effect recovery in terms of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court.”
Haryana Tribune