'Can't Remain Silent Spectator': MP High Court Orders Disciplinary Proceedings Against Police Officer For 'Shielding' Accused

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Friday (January 30), directed the Competent Authority to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for shielding an accused. The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed; "The conduct of respondent No.2 in the present matter reflects a disturbing and alarming disregard for the rule of law, the authority of the Court, and the basic canons of fair investigation. Despite rejection of anticipatory bail of respondent No.3 by the learned Trial Court as well as by this Court, the investigating agency deliberately refrained from arresting the accused and instead issued a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., thereby virtually granting protection from arrest to the accused and frustrating the spirit of the judicial orders". The petition was filed by the victim seeking transfer of investigation for offences of insulting modesty of a woman (Section 79), Criminal Intimidation (Section 351(3)) of BNS and for publishing and transmitting sexually explicit materials (Section 67(A) of IT Act from Kotwali Police Station to other credible agencies or higher police authorities. The counsel for the petitioner/victim submitted that after the Registration of the FIR, the private respondent filed for anticipatory bail before the Trial Court, which was dismissed due to the gravity of the offences. Aggrieved by the said order, the private respondent/accused filed another anticipatory bail application before the High Court, which was also dismissed, thus affirming the findings of the Trial Court. The accused thereafter approached the High Court. meanwhile the victim discovered that the police authorities, particularly the Station House Officer, acted in connivance with the accused and exempted him from arrest, effective investigation and prosecution. The victim argued that the police extended illegal protection from arrest by issuing a notice under Section 41A of CPC to the accused, thereby granting de facto bail without any authority of law. Section 41A of CPC mandates the police officer to issue a notice of appearance to individuals suspected of cognizable offence, provided arrest is not required under Section 41(1). The victim asserted that such conduct of police officers clearly shielded the accused, thus frustrating the course of justice and derailing the investigation. The counsel for the State argued that before the issuance of the notice under Section 41A CPC, the investigation was already complete and the chargesheet was filed. The bench noted that the police officer (respondent no 2) showed a disturbing and alarming disregard for the rule of law and 'the basic canons of fair investigation'. The court noted that despite rejection of bail by the Trial Court and the High Court, the investigating agency deliberately refrained from arresting the accused and instead issued a notice. Issuance of such notice by the officers, the bench noted, effectively amounted to granting protection from arrest. The court also rejected the explanation submitted by the police officer (respondent no 2), noting it to be 'wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable'.The bench further noted, "Where the competent courts have already declined anticipatory bail after considering the gravity of the allegations and material on record, the investigating agency is not expected to nullify the effect of such judicial orders by resorting to Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. mechanically. The conduct of respondent No.2 in issuing notice under Section 41A after rejection of anticipatory bail, without recording any compelling reasons justifying such deviation, reflects a blatant disregard for judicial orders and raises a serious apprehension of favoritism and extraneous influence". The bench further noted that the subsequent filing of a chargesheet would not 'wash away' the illegality committed at the stage of investigation. The conduct of the said police officer (respondent no 2) was 'deliberate misuse of authority, dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of a police officer, which has the effect of undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system'.Thus, the court held, "This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such acts. Maintenance of discipline, integrity and accountability in the police force is essential for preservation of the rule of law. When a police officer acts in a manner which appears to defeat the orders of the Court and shield an accused, the matter assumes grave seriousness and warrants immediate corrective and disciplinary action". Accordingly, the bench directed the competent authority to initiate department disciplinary proceedings against the said police officer and to place him under suspension until the conclusion of the inquiry. Further, the court directed the disciplinary authority to appoint an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, an Inquiry officer to ensure the proceedings are concluded in time bound manner. The petition was thus...

'Can't Remain Silent Spectator': MP High Court Orders Disciplinary Proceedings Against Police Officer For 'Shielding' Accused

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags