Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Does Police's Failure To Communicate Full Criminal Antecedents Of Accused Amounts To Misconduct, Interference With Justice? MP High Court Seeks DGP's Reply

Zeeshan Thomas
2 July 2022 11:00 AM GMT
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Disciplinary Action, Against Police Officer, Faulty Probe, Seizure, 21KG Cannabis, Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal, ganja,
x

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently directed the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh to file an affidavit explaining as to whether non-communication of criminal antecedents of an Applicant/Accused to the Court is a minor misconduct or if it amounts to interference with the criminal justice dispensation system. The affidavit is to be filed before the next date of hearing.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that the Court was frequently finding that the Police Authorities were not sending the complete criminal antecedents, in spite of the circular issued by Police Headquarters. Thus, the Court remarked,

In the present case, the police authorities did not send the criminal antecedents of the applicant, therefore, it is clear that it is a clear attempt to facilitate the applicant to obtain bail by projecting that he has no criminal antecedents. Whether this conduct of police officers can be said to be a minor negligence or it is an interference with the criminal justice dispensation system ?

The Court was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable U/S 307, 149, 148, 147, 506, 294, 201 IPC. The Court on an earlier hearing had observed that even though the case diary did not reflect any criminal antecedents on the part of the Applicant, the impugned order of the lower court rejecting his bail application mentioned otherwise.

Consequently, the Court sought for reply from the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind as to why the important information with regard to the criminal antecedents of the Applicant were withheld by the respective SHO. The Court was informed by the SP on the subsequent hearing that the SHO concerned as well as the Investigating Officer in the case were found guilty of misconduct and were fined with Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000, respectively.

The Court noted that since the problem was stemming from different police stations, the DGP should file his reply regarding the prevailing situation-

Since this situation is prevailing in different police stations, therefore, the DGP, State of M.P., is directed to file an affidavit as to whether non- communication of criminal antecedents of an applicant is a minor misconduct or it amounts to interfere with the criminal justice dispensation system. The affidavit be filed within a period of one week.

The matter would be heard next on 08.07.2022.

Case Title: KULDEEP DOHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Next Story