The interrogator must simply be smarter than the Accused who is under interrogation.

DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CBI CORRUPTION MATTER

Ravjeet Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 

Bail Appln.328/2026; 12.03.2026

We, the Hawelikar & Associates, Advocates represented through our Counsel/ Advisor - Litigation ( Strategy & Research) Mr. Sarath Manari, in a landmark case before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in Ravjeet Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Bail Appln. 328/2026).

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court delivered a notable ruling on 12.03.2026 on the question of the scope of anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia granted anticipatory bail to the accused, who was alleged to have conspired with the principal accused an Army officer to obtain approvals from the Ministry of External Affairs in exchange for illegal gratification. The Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the accused would not cooperate in interrogation.

The Court rejected the contention of CBI, holding that intelligent responses to an interrogator by the accused do not amount to his/her non-cooperation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that no accused is under a duty to be unintelligent in the face of questioning, and that it is for the investigating agency to conduct its interrogation effectively. The Court further noted that the prosecution’s primary evidence consisted of WhatsApp chat screenshots rather than authenticated chat records, and that the main accused had already been released on bail by the Special Court.

The matter was conducted by a team led by Mr. Trideep Pias, Senior Advocate. Adv. Sarath Manari from Hawelikar & Associates was part of the counsel team appearing for the Applicant before the Delhi High Court.

The ruling has been reported on Live Law and is of significance to practitioners in criminal and anti-corruption law.

1.         Vague and unsubstantiated allegations of non-cooperation cannot constitute a valid ground to oppose anticipatory bail.

2.         An accused giving intelligent responses to an interrogator does not amount to non-cooperation the duty of effective interrogation lies with the investigating agency.

3.         Where the principal accused has been released on bail, the parity principle entitles a co-accused with a lesser attributed role to equal treatment.

4.         WhatsApp chat screenshots, not being the original authenticated chat records, carry diminished evidentiary weight at the bail stage.

5.         Filing of the chargesheet does not foreclose the right to seek anticipatory bail where the accused has not been arrested.