Self-Incrimination Rights

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Arun Monga held that an accused’s refusal to confess or give incriminating answers during investigation cannot be treated as “non-cooperation.” Granting anticipatory bail in an extortion case, the Court observed that evasive replies are a matter for trial and noted that the complainant’s opposition to bail appeared motivated by ego rather than legal grounds. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Mohd Kamran v. State NCT of Delhi (2025). 

What was the Background of Mohd Kamran v. State NCT of Delhi (2025)? 

• The complainant Mohd. Amir, a building contractor associated with Irshad Hussain for five years, entered into a written agreement with Amanuddin approximately ten months prior to the incident for demolition and reconstruction of a house. 
• During the construction process, the accused Mohd. Kamran along with co-accused Haroon and Barish allegedly attempted to extort Rs. 20 lakhs from the complainant by filing complaints with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Writ Petition (C) No. 5607/2022 in the High Court to halt construction work. 
• The complainant allegedly paid Rs. 10,000 on the spot and Rs. 20,000 on 06.02.2024 under duress, with these transactions being audio and video recorded and subsequently submitted to police as evidence. 
• FIR No. 150/2024 was registered on 10.06.2024 at Police Station Chandni Mahal under Sections 384, 385, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint dated 11.02.2024 concerning an incident of 03.02.2024. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari dismissed the applicant's previous anticipatory bail application vide order dated 04.07.2024, following which the applicant was served notices under Sections 41A and 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
• The applicant, being Chairman of a registered public welfare trust and permanent resident with clean antecedents, sought exemption due to health issues and filed the present anticipatory bail application, while the property in question was allegedly included in his Public Interest Litigation against unauthorized constructions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the FIR was completely silent on any allegation of threat or fear being caused to the complainant, which constitutes an essential element of the offence of extortion, and failed to disclose specific details regarding how, when, or in what manner the alleged payments were made to the applicant. 
• The Court emphasized that merely because an applicant has not responded to the Investigating Officer's questions on dotted lines or has not made any confession or stated anything incriminating against himself, the same cannot be termed as non-cooperation, as the applicant has the fundamental right to defend himself. 
• The Court noted that the complainant was opposing the bail application merely for satisfaction of his ego rather than on legitimate legal grounds, and that the allegations against the applicant were matters to be determined during trial proceedings where the law will take its own course if guilt is established. 
• The Court found that since the applicant had extended full cooperation to the investigation, provided voice samples for forensic examination, and nothing further was required to be recovered from him, it was not a case warranting preventive custody. 
• The Court observed that regarding allegations of filing Public Interest Litigations with oblique motives of extortion, the complainant was at liberty to take appropriate action in the PIL proceedings, and it was not for the Court to comment on the same in the bail application. 
• The Court directed formal arrest of the applicant followed by immediate release upon furnishing personal bond with one surety of equivalent amount in terms of Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, making absolute the interim protection granted vide order dated 12.07.2024. 

What is Self-Incrimination Rights ? 

• Constitutional Foundation and Scope 
  • The right against self-incrimination constitutes a fundamental protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, which categorically states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This constitutional guarantee draws inspiration from the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution and is grounded in the legal maxim "Nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum," establishing that individuals cannot be compelled to make self-incriminating statements. 
  • The protection extends comprehensively beyond accused persons to include witnesses in criminal proceedings, serving as a barrier against abuse, coercion, and unjust prosecutions. While individuals cannot be compelled to provide self-incriminating information, this fundamental right does not prevent their arrest or prosecution based on other lawful evidence, maintaining the balance between individual protection and criminal justice administration. 
• Judicial Interpretation and Evolution 
  • Supreme Court jurisprudence has significantly shaped the understanding of self-incrimination rights through landmark decisions. In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978), the Court emphasized that no one can be forced to incriminate themselves under any circumstances. The Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) judgment declared that narcoanalysis tests, brain mapping, and polygraph tests conducted without consent violate Article 20(3) protections. 
  • Recent developments include Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), where the Court permitted compulsory voice sample collection alongside handwriting samples without violating constitutional protections. Significantly, in Chanda Deepak Kocchar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023), the Court observed that non-cooperation or failure to provide complete disclosure does not constitute sufficient ground for arrest. 
• Arrest Procedures and Statutory Framework 
  • The D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) guidelines established comprehensive protocols for arrest and detention, mandating proper identification, arrest memos, and notification rights. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) reinforced that arrests must satisfy Sections 41 and 41A of CrPC requirements, while Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) emphasized that power to arrest does not mean compulsion to arrest. 
  • Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 35 provides structured arrest powers with mandatory notice provisions. Compliance with Section 35(3) notices is considered cooperation, and non-compliance without justification entitles accused persons to bail. Special protections exist for vulnerable persons, requiring senior officer permission for arrests involving minor offences where the accused is infirm or elderly, ensuring that self-incrimination rights remain preserved while balancing investigative needs.