Where Allegations Are Against Cops, Investigation By Same Agency Raises Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court transferred to the CBCID investigation into the death of a cop who was working at Kukunoorpally Police Station, holding that when serious allegations are made against police officers themselves then investigation conducted by the same agency raises reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer. Justice N. Tukaramji observed:“In cases where allegations are...
The Telangana High Court transferred to the CBCID investigation into the death of a cop who was working at Kukunoorpally Police Station, holding that when serious allegations are made against police officers themselves then investigation conducted by the same agency raises reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer.
Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
“In cases where allegations are made against police officials themselves, investigation by the same agency may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Even in the absence of proven mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of investigation.”
The Court further held that in the present case the local investigation “does not inspire confidence” and “falls short of the constitutional mandate of a fair and impartial investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The writ petition was filed by the widow and mother of late P. Prabhakar Reddy, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector at Kukunoorpally Police Station, Siddipet District. According to the petitioners, he allegedly died by suicide on 14.06.2017 at the Police Headquarters, Siddipet, by shooting himself on the forehead with his service revolver. On the same day, a complaint was lodged under Section 306 IPC, expressing strong suspicion against the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gajwel, and Crime No.110 of 2017 was registered.
The petitioners alleged that the ACP had subjected the deceased to continuous harassment and coercion, compelling him to perform illegal and unofficial acts, which caused severe mental distress. They further claimed that immediately after the incident, the ACP entered the police quarters, secured and screened the crime scene, removed a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased, tampered with material evidence, and even took away valuables from the body. According to the petitioners, the investigation thereafter was neither fair nor impartial and was designed to shield the officer concerned.
The State, on the other hand, contended that the deceased was under personal distress because he apprehended implication in another criminal case and feared damage to his reputation and service career. It was submitted that the post-mortem confirmed death due to firearm injury, material objects were sent for forensic examination, statements were recorded, and a final report had already been filed. The State denied allegations of bias or manipulation and maintained that the investigation was fair.
The High Court held that the central issue was not whether the death was by gunshot, which was undisputed, but whether the investigation met the constitutional requirement of fairness and impartiality.
The Court noted that the petitioners had made serious allegations of abetment, removal of the suicide note, tampering with the crime scene, and removal of valuables, all against a senior police officer. It found that these allegations, coupled with the fact that the accused officer belonged to the same department conducting the investigation, created a reasonable apprehension of lack of fairness.
The Court also emphasized that “justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done,” and relied on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights to reiterate that a fair, impartial and unbiased investigation is an essential facet of Article 21.
Significantly, the Court noted that the allegation regarding removal of the suicide note was of considerable evidentiary value, and that allegations of tampering with the scene and removal of valuables further deepened doubts about the integrity of the investigation. These factors, taken cumulatively, were held sufficient to undermine public confidence in the local probe.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the investigation in Crime No.110 of 2017 be transferred to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department for a fair, impartial and independent probe, including further or de novo investigation if necessary. The CBCID was asked to complete the probe preferably within nine months and submit periodical progress reports before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Case Title: Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No.1573 of 2018
Appearance: Mr. Sujith Jaiswal for the petitioners; Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents.