Can’t deny bail for refusing to confess: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has condemned the growing police practice of opposing bail on the ground that the accused is “uncooperative” merely because he refuses to confess. Calling it a coercive and constitutionally impermissible tactic, the court asserted that such conduct violated the right against self-incrimination and undermined the very foundations of a fair investigation.

“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,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted.

The ruling came in a theft case registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on November 25, 2024, at the Bajghera police station in Gurugram district. The prosecution, in a voluminous 402-page status report, sought custodial interrogation of the accused on the ground that he had not answered the questions put to him and had, thereby, “failed to cooperate during investigation.”

The court, however, noted that silence could not be equated with guilt. “It appears that under the garb of non-cooperation during investigation, the investigating agency is compelling the petitioner to make self-incriminating statements,” the bench asserted, adding that no one could be forced to admit guilt.

“Forcing a person to speak against himself goes against Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination,” Justice Brar observed. Admonishing the investigation process, the court added it was the Investigating Officer’s duty to conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation by gathering all relevant evidence, both oral and documentary, to establish the truth of the matter

Justice Brar made it clear that an investigation based on confessions was neither legally sustainable nor just. “Relying solely on self-incriminating statements made by the accused is not only legally unsound but also contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair trial,” the court stated.

The court also warned against the misuse of investigative authority by observing: “It is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to actively seek out such corroborative material and build a case based on objective findings rather than mere admissions, which may be influenced by coercion, fear, or misunderstanding.”

Haryana Tribune