Evasive Answers During Interrogation Not Non-Cooperation for Denying Anticipatory Bail in Extortion Case (S.384/385 IPC): Delhi High Court - 2025-09-01

Evasive Answers Not Grounds for Custody if Accused Cooperates: Delhi HC Grants Bail in PIL-Extortion Case

New Delhi - The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on the principles of anticipatory bail, has held that an accused giving "evasive answers" during interrogation cannot be termed as non-cooperation, especially when they have joined the investigation and no recovery is pending. Justice Arun Monga granted anticipatory bail to Mohd Kamran, a man accused of using Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as a tool to extort money from a building contractor.

The court made the interim protection from arrest, granted on July 12, 2024, absolute, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is not warranted merely because an accused has not confessed or incriminated themselves.

Background of the Case

The case stems from FIR No. 150/2024, registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal under IPC Sections 384 (Extortion), 385 (Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The complainant, Mohd. Amir, a building contractor, alleged that Mohd. Kamran and his associates attempted to extort ₹20 lakhs from him. The accused allegedly filed complaints with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and a writ petition in the High Court to halt a construction project, thereby pressuring the complainant. The FIR mentioned that payments of ₹10,000 and ₹20,000 were made, and the transactions were recorded as evidence.

Notably, the FIR was registered following an observation by a different bench of the High Court in a related PIL (W.P.(C) 5607/2022), which directed the police to investigate any complaints of extortion filed by the parties involved in that litigation.

Arguments from Both Sides

Applicant's Defence:

• No Threat or Fear: Counsel for Mohd. Kamran argued that the FIR lacked the essential element of extortion, as it did not allege that the complainant was put in fear of injury.
• Retaliatory FIR: It was contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure against Kamran for filing a PIL against unauthorized constructions, which included the property in question. The significant delay in lodging the FIR—filed in June 2024 for an incident in February 2024—was highlighted as evidence of collusion.
• Willingness to Cooperate: The applicant maintained his readiness to join the investigation, explaining his earlier non-appearance was due to health issues and the concurrent scheduling of his bail hearing.
• Clean Antecedents: The applicant, being the Chairman of a public welfare trust with no prior criminal record, was not a flight risk.

State's and Complainant's Opposition:

• Evasive Answers: The Learned APP for the State opposed the bail, stating that while Kamran had joined the investigation and provided voice samples, his answers during interrogation were "evasive."
• Habitual Extortionist: The complainant's counsel vehemently argued that Kamran was a "habitual extortionist" who misused the PIL mechanism as a tool to harass residents. It was pointed out that Kamran had filed petitions seeking the demolition of around 200 properties.

Court's Reasoning and Pivotal Observations

Justice Arun Monga systematically addressed the arguments, focusing on the necessity of custodial interrogation.

On the State's argument of "evasive answers," the court provided a crucial clarification:

"Qua the argument of learned APP that the applicant has given evasive answers, I am of the view that merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions of the Investigating Officer on the dotted lines or has not made any confession and or stated anything incriminating against him, the same cannot be termed as non-cooperation."

The court underscored the applicant's right to defend himself, stating that the veracity of his answers is a matter for trial.

Regarding the allegations of misusing PILs, the court deemed it outside the scope of the bail hearing:

"Regarding his having filed Public Interest Litigations and/or with the oblique motives of extortion, the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate action in the PIL and it is not for this Court to comment on the same."

The court concluded that the complainant's opposition seemed driven by a desire for "satisfaction of his ego" rather than a genuine need for custodial interrogation.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and that nothing further was required to be recovered from him, the court ruled that it was not a case for preventive custody.

The interim order dated July 12, 2024, was made absolute. The court directed the Investigating Officer to formally arrest the applicant and release him immediately upon furnishing a personal bond with one surety.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that anticipatory bail should not be denied on subjective grounds like "evasive answers" when an accused is otherwise cooperating. It distinguishes the right to remain silent and defend oneself from non-cooperation, setting a clear standard for assessing the need for pre-trial detention in similar cases.