MOHD KAMRAN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, 2025
The court observed that Merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions on the dotted lines or has not made any confession, it cannot be termed non-cooperation.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
23 September 2025
Judges
Justice Arun Monga
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
An FIR was registered against the accused (Mohd Kamran) based on a complaint by a contractor.
-
The complainant had entered into an agreement to demolish and reconstruct a house.
-
During the construction, the accused allegedly attempted to extort ₹20 lakhs by filing false complaints to halt the construction.
-
Allegedly, the complainant paid ₹10,000 on the spot and ₹20,000 later.
-
These transactions were audio and video recorded and handed over to the police.
-
The accused’s anticipatory bail was rejected by the trial court in July 2024.
Issues
-
Whether the accused was non-cooperative with the investigation?
-
Whether refusal to give incriminating statements amounts to non-cooperation?
-
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the nature of allegations and cooperation level?
Held
-
The Anticipatory bail granted.
-
The Investigating Officer was directed to formally arrest the applicant & release him immediately upon furnishing personal bond with one surety. and ensure compliance with Section 482(2) BNSS.
-
The accused is to remain available for further investigation/trial.
Analysis
-
The court observed that “Merely because the applicant has not responded to the questions on the dotted lines or has not made any confession, it cannot be termed non-cooperation.”
-
“The accused has answered the questions, and whether the answers are evasive or not is a matter for trial, not for pre-trial custody.”
-
The Preventive custody was not warranted as there was no threat of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
-
The Allegations were at the trial stage and did not justify denial of bail.
-
It was noted that the opposition to bail by complainant appeared ego-driven, not legally granted.