Non cooperation with investigation

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3816 OF 2024
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 11023 OF 2024
ARVIND KEJRIWAL   APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION          RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3817 OF 2024
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 10991 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
24. In so far the grounds of arrest are concerned, I am of
the view that those would not satisfy the test of necessity to
justify  arrest  of  the  appellant  and   now  that  the  appellant   is
seeking bail post incarceration, those cannot also be the grounds
to deny him bail. The respondent is definitely wrong when it says
that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he
was not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, he was
rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It
14
cannot be the proposition that only when an accused answers
the   questions   put   to   him   by   the   investigation   agency   in   the
manner in which the investigating agency would like the accused
to answer, would mean that the accused is cooperating with the
investigation. Further, the respondent cannot justify arrest and
continued detention citing evasive reply.
25. We   should   not   forget   the   cardinal   principle   under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India that no person accused
of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
This Court has held that such a protection is available to a
person accused of an offence not merely with respect to the
evidence that may be given in the court in the course of the trial,
but is also available to the accused at a previous stage if an
accusation   has   been   made   against   him   which   might   in   the
normal course result in his prosecution. Thus, the protection is
available to a person against whom a formal accusation has been
made, though the actual trial may not have commenced and if
such   an   accusation   relates   to   the   commission   of   an   offence
which   in   the   normal   course   may   result   in   prosecution.   An
accused has the right to remain silent; he cannot be compelled to
make   inculpatory   statements   against   himself.   No   adverse
15
inference can be drawn from the silence of the accused. If this is
the   position,   then   the   very   grounds   given   for   arrest   of   the
appellant would be wholly untenable. On such grounds, it would
be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in further detention
in the CBI case, more so, when he has already been granted bail
on   the   same   set   of   allegations   under   the   more   stringent
provisions of PMLA