Failure to Provide Expected Answers Does Not Amount to Non-Cooperation in Investigation: Punjab & Haryana HC

In a significant clarification on the nature of 'cooperation' during criminal investigations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be denied anticipatory bail simply because their responses do not satisfy the investigating agency. Justice Mandeep Pannu, while presiding over a petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasized that the right against self-incrimination protects an accused from being compelled to provide answers that the police might expect or desire.

Defining Cooperation in Criminal Investigations

The Court observed that cooperation primarily involves joining the investigation and being available to the authorities, rather than providing specific incriminatory information. The Bench was hearing a plea for pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged property fraud and forgery registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Cooperation in investigation has 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. The obligation to cooperate with the investigation is distinct from an obligation to provide answers satisfying the Investigating Agency."

Custodial Interrogation Not Justified for Evidentiary Gaps

Addressing the lower court's refusal to grant bail based on 'unsatisfactory answers' regarding the attestation of documents, the High Court noted that such details are for the agency to establish through its own material. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted solely to elicit specific answers that the petitioner might not be in a position to give. The Court has the following directions:

"In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to her furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer and subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

Background: Dispute Over Property Rights

The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, alleging that the petitioner and her siblings had executed a fraudulent agreement to sell for a plot that the complainant's father had allegedly purchased in 2015. The complainant alleged that the accused persons forcibly occupied the plot and issued threats.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the matter was purely civil, involving a long-standing title dispute for which a specific performance suit was already pending. It was further contended that the petitioner had already joined the investigation under interim protection granted by the sessions court, but bail was ultimately denied by the lower court on the grounds of non-cooperation. The High Court, however, found that since the petitioner had appeared before the investigators and the case relied heavily on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M No.33483 of 2026
Case Title: Santosh Rani v. State of Haryana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Kant Berwal, Advocate for Mr. Kartik, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana; Mr. Anurag Mor and Mr. Sachin Jangra, Advocates for the Complainant

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 69