“Shocking”: High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Fine On Bhopal DIG For Suppressing Evidence In 2017 Murder Case, Criticizes Trial Court's Approach

The Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the present Deputy Inspector General of Bhopal to pay a fine of Rs 5 lakh for deliberately suppressing evidence in a murder case, while he was posted as the Superintendent of Police at Datia District. In doing so, the Court has also directed the Director General of Police to initiate departmental inquiry against the officer.A single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “It is really a shocking state of affairs where the Police has not risen up to the minimum level of duties expected from them.”The Court was dealing with a petition filed in connection with the murder trial, when it noted that despite judicial order requiring the Police to preserve the specified call detail records and mobile location, the agency failed to do so. However, no action was taken by the Trial Court, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.The counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the direction to preserve CDR, location, etc. was issued within a period of two years and even though the police had assured on an earlier occasion that action had been taken in that regard, they deliberately did not take any action.Appearing for the Police, the Counsel detailed the events. It was submitted that the then SHO had sent a letter to the then SP (now DIG) for preservation of records and the latter eventually forwarded the request to Cyber Cell. Thereafter, the then SP was transferred out of the District. The counsel further explained that to ensure compliance of the Trial Court order, the then SP had requested the incumbent SP to retrieve the data from State Crime Records Bureau (SCRB) Server.Thus, it was submitted that the data has been retrieved and shall be made available to the Court by the present Superintendent of Police. It was further submitted that the SHO had wrongly stated before the Trial Court that the record which was directed to be preserved was not received.The High Court had then sought an explanation from the then SP. In its final order, the Court noted that the then SP had already received the call details and the location of mobile phones on his official email ID but he deliberately did not disclose it to anybody, not even to the Court. Thus, the Court opined that the then SP has played fraud on the Court. It observed,“…in the light of arguments advanced by counsel for complainant it is clear that Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia has tried to violate the fundamental rights of free and fair investigation as well as free and fair trial of at least one of the parties...it is clear that Shri Mayank Awasthi has no regards for the law of land and he is in habit of functioning as a Police Officer according to his own whims and wishes, thereby giving a complete go-by to the law of the land…the conduct of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia, at present posted as DIG, Bhopal is much below the standard which is expected from a senior police officer and is contrary to the law of the land…”Conduct of Trial CourtThe High Court noted that the Trial Court "did not rise to the occasion" and in a most "casual manner" exonerated the Police from all their liabilities"…Suppression of documents for any good or bad reason is detrimental to the justice dispensation system and when the suppression is conscious...it becomes more serious...Under these circumstances, the minimum which the Trial Court should have done was to send a reference for initiating the proceedings for Contempt of Court but unfortunately the Trial Court has failed in discharging its duty and has allowed the investigating agency to go scot-free for the negligence shown by them towards their duties as well as contemptuous act towards the order of the Court.”, it further added.Thus, the High Court directed the Trial Judge to initiate contempt proceedings against the then Superintendent of Police.With regard to the conduct of the then SHO and present SHO concerned, the Court granted liberty to the Trial Court to decide as to whether it would like to proceed against them.Case Title: Ramu @ Manvendra Singh Gurjar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 4578 Of 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 87Click Here To Read/Download Order

“Shocking”: High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Fine On Bhopal DIG For Suppressing Evidence In 2017 Murder Case, Criticizes Trial Court's Approach

Anukriti Mishra

Tags