When Purpose Of Police Remand Is Clearly Stated, Trial Court Can't Dictate Manner Of Probe: HP High Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against Cops

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside orders of a trial court, that refused policy custody of an accused in a communal violence case and also expunged adverse remarks made by the trial court that branded the investigation as “myopic” and “mala fide.”Setting aside the Trial Court's order Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “The purpose, for which, the police remand has been sought, has specifically been mentioned and to investigate the matter, is the sole prerogative of the police. The Court cannot issue direction to the police not to investigate the matter, in a particular manner”. The Court noted that the remarks by the trial court such as branding the investigation as myopic and with the sole intention to secure police custody of respondent with malafide intentions and filed with ulterior motives are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Background Facts:On 10th June, 2025, an FIR was registered under Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita after a complaint that a Muslim boy had enticed away a Hindu girl. This incident led to communal tension in the area. After getting to know this, volunteers of Hindu jagran Manch gathered for a demonstration. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer tried to pacify the Mob, however the volunteers repeatedly stated that they will finish the person who had taken the girl. Seeing the gravity of the situation, some policemen were sent to the house of the main accused, in order to maintain law and order of the situation. In the evening of 13th June, 2025 volunteers of Hindu Jagran Manch, including MLA Sukh Ram Chaudhary, MLA Rajeev Bindal, including the respondents along with others, who were carrying sticks dandas in their hands, were proceeding towards the house of accused.Despite efforts by the police, two people which included Manav Sharma, the respondent, were instigating the other persons, by saying that the police is not searching for the girl and that, they themselves have to finish the person, who has enticed away the said girl. Thereafter, tension arose between the two communities and they started pelting stones on each other and also beating each other with sticks. Meanwhile, some of the persons from the mob had also started pelting stones on the police. Due to pelting of stones, complainant sustained injuries over his head and two of the police officers also sustained injuries. Upon investigation, respondent along with three other were arrested and were produced before the Doctor for medical examination. One of the co-accused disclosed that the respondent had supplied him the axe for the attack on a police officer. An independent witness stated that the respondent had instructed others to not go empty-handed and had brought weapons for them. Based on the information, the police filed a remand application before the trial court seeking three days' custody of respondent-Manav Sharma. However, the application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the statement of co-accused was insufficient to grant remand. The police then filed a fresh application submitting that an independent witness had also made a statement that the respondent had supplied weapons to the rioters. However, even this application was dismissed by the trial court stating the investigation to be biased, malafide, reprehensible and directed the Director General of Police to take action. Aggrieved, the police approached the High Court, for setting aside of the trial court's order and to expunge the adverse remarks made in the said orders against the police officials. Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Manav SharmaCase No.: CrMMO No. 726 of 2025Date of Decision: 07.08.2025For the Petitioner: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General,with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Dy.SP Manvinder Thakur, SI Jagat Ram, SHO and HC Baljit Kumar, Police Station Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Thakur and Mr. Anshul Bansal, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Adhiraj Thakur, Mr. Ankit Chandel, Mr. Somesh Sharma and Mr. Peeyush Dhanotia, Advocates.Click Here To Read/Download Order

When Purpose Of Police Remand Is Clearly Stated, Trial Court Can't Dictate Manner Of Probe: HP High Court Quashes Adverse Remarks Against Cops

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags