Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of a woman accused of acting as a mediator in multiple fraudulent marriages, observing serious procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer (IO) had provided contradictory statements regarding the preparation of the Case Diary, with missing diary numbers and post-dated entries raising doubts about the integrity of the investigation. Emphasising that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate, the Court underscored that “it is the investigative skills of interrogation, which are required” and that “the accused has a right to silence.” Considering the applicant’s status as a woman and the prima facie unreliability of the Case Diary, the Court directed that she be released on bail in the event of arrest upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount.
Facts
The applicant was accused of mediating a fraudulent marriage between the complainant and a woman named Sona. The complainant alleged that he was deceived into parting with a substantial sum of money, only to later discover that Sona had been fraudulently married multiple times using the same scheme, with the applicant acting as a recurring intermediary. The police registered an FIR under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 115(2), 318(2), 316(2), 83, and 60(b).
On 29 April 2025, the Court had granted interim protection from arrest, noting the applicant’s willingness to join the investigation and cooperate. The Court had also remarked on procedural deficiencies in the investigation file, particularly the absence of a Case Diary and undated interrogation records.
Issues
- Whether the applicant, accused of facilitating repeated fraudulent marriages, was entitled to anticipatory bail.
- Whether the lapses in the maintenance of the Case Diary affected the credibility of the investigation to the extent that custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
- Whether the accused’s alleged non-cooperation justified denial of bail when she exercised her right to remain silent.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant contended that she was willing to join the investigation and had complied with prior Court directions. Being a woman, she sought protection from arrest, submitting that incarceration at this stage would be unwarranted. She also offered to hand over her mobile phone to the IO as and when directed. The defence maintained that there was no direct evidence linking her to the proceeds allegedly received by Sona, and that her role was limited to introductions without involvement in the fraudulent scheme.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail plea, claiming that the applicant was not cooperating during the investigation despite being called upon to do so. The IO maintained that her responses were evasive and hindered progress in the case. However, the Court noted contradictions in the IO’s statements, particularly regarding the preparation and existence of the Case Diary.
Analysis of the Law
The Court relied on the constitutional principle that no accused can be compelled to self-incriminate (Article 20(3) of the Constitution) and reiterated that the right to silence is a fundamental protection during interrogation. It also stressed that proper maintenance of the Case Diary under procedural law is not a mere formality but an essential safeguard to ensure transparency and accountability in investigations. Any irregularities or missing records undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case at the pre-trial stage.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment does not explicitly cite other cases, the reasoning aligns with established jurisprudence in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Selvi v. State of Karnataka, which affirm the right to silence and procedural integrity during investigation. The principle that bail, not jail, is the rule—unless custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary—is also consistent with State of Rajasthan v. Balchand.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the IO’s conduct troubling, noting that on 29 April 2025, the IO had expressly stated no Case Diary had been written. However, a Case Diary dated 13 April 2025 later surfaced, bearing a sequence inconsistency (Diary No. 58 dated 02 April, missing Diary No. 59, and then Diary No. 60 dated 13 April). These discrepancies indicated that the Case Diary had been prepared retrospectively, undermining its evidentiary reliability.
The Court also dismissed the State’s claim of non-cooperation, observing that such an argument often implied that the accused had refused to confess—something they were legally entitled to do. It reiterated that effective investigation should rely on the skill of questioning, not compelled admissions.
Conclusion
Considering the applicant’s gender, her interim cooperation, and the procedural irregularities in the investigation, the Court held there was no justification for custodial interrogation. Anticipatory bail was granted with conditions to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 and one surety, and to continue joining the investigation upon written notice.
Implications
This decision reinforces judicial scrutiny over investigative procedures, particularly in cases where procedural lapses in maintaining Case Diaries raise doubts about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. It affirms that accused persons cannot be penalised for exercising their right to silence and that gender can be a relevant factor in bail considerations. The ruling may influence future anticipatory bail applications where investigative misconduct is evident.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
While the order does not explicitly detail cited judgments, its reasoning reflects principles from:
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal — underscoring procedural safeguards in custody.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka — affirming the right against self-incrimination.
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand — reiterating that bail is the norm unless exceptional circumstances exist.
FAQs
Q1: Can an accused refuse to answer questions during interrogation?
Yes. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, an accused has the right against self-incrimination and cannot be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.
Q2: How important is the Case Diary in criminal investigations?
The Case Diary is a crucial procedural document ensuring transparency and accountability in investigations. Missing entries or retrospective preparation can seriously undermine the prosecution’s case.
Q3: Does being a woman influence bail decisions?
While gender is not a sole determining factor, courts may consider it as a relevant circumstance, especially in anticipatory bail matters, alongside other factors like cooperation and evidence strength.
