Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground that the accused declined to answer questions posed by the investigating officer, as such conduct cannot automatically be construed as non-cooperation. “Not answering to the questions of the IO, would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale.The bench set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which declined to grant an anticipatory bail to the accused on parity, while granting bail to other co-accused in a case arising out of the same FIR alleging an offence of trespass, merely because the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation. “…also the fact that the other co-accused have been already granted bail, we are of the considered view that appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.”, the court said. It may be noted that in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 557 the Supreme Court rejected the argument that refusal to cooperate justifies denying bail, reaffirming the accused's right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination. The Court in Tusharbhai's case noted that “there would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime, and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation.” Accordingly, the Appellant was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional IO may deem fit to impose, and also on the condition that the appellant would appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason. The appeal was allowed. Cause Title: SHALLY MAHANT @ SANDEEP VERSUS STATE OF PUNJABCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 146Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Mr. Rupendra Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Adv.

Not Answering Investigating Officer's Questions Doesn't Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation To Deny Bail : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags