Madras High Court Stays Trial Against IPS Officer Balveer Singh In Custodial Violence Cases

Justice Shamim Ahmed granted interim stay in a plea filed by the officer seeking to set aside the Judicial Magistrate order framing charges against him in four custodial torture cases, while he was holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram.

In his plea, Singh claimed that the Ambasamudram area was highly prone to animosities between different sections of the society on caste lines and that he always had to deal with law and order issues. He also submitted that they also had constant problems with drug peddlers who transported Ganja from outside the state and made youth and students addicted to it.

Singh submitted that while holding the position, he had dealt with the rowdies and antisocial elements to safeguard the public. He stated that because of his stern actions, the antisocial elements started levelling false allegations against him and started making baseless allegations against him.

He submitted that based on the baseless allegations, a complaint was registered and following "media propaganda", the cases were eventually transferred to the CB CID. He also submitted that other complainants exploited the situation and made false complaints during the high level enquiry by an IAS officer.

He submitted that after investigation, the prosecution filed a final report in the trial court with conflicting versions, contradictions and fallacies. He added that the trial court also proceeded mechanically and ordered him to stand trial for the offences.

He submitted that at the time of framing charges, the trial court erred in framing charges in Tamil language, not taking note of the fact that it was not Singh's language, thus violating Section 281 (4) of the CrPC. He submitted that the trial court should have supplied a translated copy of the witness statements before framing charges against Singh. He submitted that the non-furnishing of translation of the witness statements resulted in the deprivation of his right to defend himself effectively as guaranteed under the Constitution.

He submitted that the trial court has erred in framing the charges based on the final report filed by the investigating agency, without adhering to Guideline No. 3 of Chapter 7 of the CB CID manual mandating the photography/videography of the Scene of Crime (SOC).

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr M Ravi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Mubarak Ahmad

Counsel for Respondents: Ms R Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr A. S. Abdul Kalam Azad, Governemnt Advocate

Case Title: Balveer Singh v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Case No: Crl RC(MD) 1427 of 2025