### Lack of Cooperation Unfounded Where Main Accused Granted Bail and Chargesheet Already Filed

The Petitioner, Ravjeet Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. RC2172025A0024 registered by the CBI for alleged corruption and conspiracy.

The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner, managing India operations for M/s D.P. World, conspired with Lt. Col. Deepak Sharma to obtain undue favors from Government ministries in exchange for illegal gratification.

A raid by the CBI resulted in the recovery of ₹3,00,000 from Lt. Col. Sharma.

The primary evidence against the Petitioner consists of WhatsApp chat screenshots.

While the main accused, Lt. Col. Sharma, was already granted bail, the CBI opposed the Petitioner’s application primarily on the grounds of non-cooperation.

The main chargesheet was filed on 16.02.2026, though further investigation is ongoing.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with the main accused and the nature of the evidence presented.

Whether "non-cooperation during interrogation" constitutes a sufficient legal ground to deny anticipatory bail when no flight risk or evidence tampering is alleged.

The court considered the provisions for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the substantive offences under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court applied the principle of judicial parity, noting that if the main accused is released on bail, a similarly situated or less-implicated co-accused generally deserves the same relief.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the legal principle that "non-cooperation" in the form of evasive answers is not a valid ground for detention, as the burden of eliciting information lies with the interrogator.

The Court observed that the role ascribed to the Petitioner was lesser than that of the main accused, Lt. Col. Deepak Sharma, who had already been granted bail.

It scrutinized the CBI’s sole objection—non-cooperation—and found it "vague and unacceptable," clarifying that an accused is not under a duty to respond in a manner that satisfies the interrogator’s expectations.

The Court noted that the evidence was largely electronic (WhatsApp screenshots) and that the CBI did not express any apprehension regarding the Petitioner fleeing or failing to join the investigation in the future.

Given that the main chargesheet was already filed, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

It held that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety.

The Petitioner was directed to join the investigation as and when required in writing by the Investigating Officer and was strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence.

All accompanying applications were disposed of accordingly.