While cancelling the anticipatory bail of a police officer who had tampered with a first information person to arrest the wrong person, the Supreme Court has held that members of uniformed services need to be held to a higher standard.
—
ON Wednesday, the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to a police officer accused of making a wrongful arrest by altering a first information report (FIR).
Writing the judgment for the Bench— which also comprised Justice Vikram Nath— Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that granting relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in the society.
It would be against public interest as well, the Bench observed.
The Bench was ruling on an appeal filed by the Jharkhand government against the high court's Order granting pre-arrest bail to accused officer Sandeep Kumar.
Kumar was the officer-in-charge of Dhanwar police station, district Giridih at the relevant time and was the investigating officer in the FIR against one Ranjeet Kumar Saw under Sections 420, 475, 201, 109 and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The FIR against the police officer was registered upon a complaint made by one Sanjay Kumar Sharma on behalf of United Spirits Limited.
The allegation against police officer Kumar, which led to the registration of a case against him, was that he had made interpolations in the FIR in Dhanwar PS Case No. 276 of 2021, whereby he changed the name of the father of Ranjeet Kumar Saw, the accused therein, from Lakhan Saw to Balgovind Saw.
Subsequently, he arrested Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, so as to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw.
On April 5, 2022, additional sessions judge-V, Giridih rejected the pre-arrest bail filed by police officer Kumar.
The judge noted that the CCTV footage of Dhanwar police station revealed that Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, entered the police station and had several meetings with Kumar and it was only at about 10 p.m. that Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, entered the police station and was placed in custody at about 11.22 p.m.
It was also noted by the judge that the interpolations in the FIR were clearly visible to the naked eye and that there was sufficient material indicating the involvement of Kumar in the alleged offence.
Challenging the judge's Order, police officer Kumar approached the Jharkhand High Court. On July 6, 2022, the high court, without assigning any reasons, granted pre-arrest bail to the accused Kumar.
Disapproving the high court's Order, the Supreme Court Bench said it was unfortunate that the court had not deemed it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to police officer Kumar.
The Supreme Court said that the high court should have been more diligent given that the accused was a member of a uniformed service and was holding the responsible position of officer-in-charge of a police station apart from being the investigating officer in the case wherein he was alleged to have made a wrongful arrest by making alterations in the FIR.
The Bench also noted that as per the statement of the informant Sanjay Kumar Sharma, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on November 29, 2021, Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, was apprehended with a Bolero vehicle containing incriminating material and he and his staff signed the arrest and seizure memos, which were not filled in full, in front of police officer Kumar and his staff.
In his statement, Sharma further stated that, trusting the respondent, Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw and his staff had signed those documents but, later, police officer Kumar changed the father's name of the person apprehended and released him. In his place, he sent a different person to jail.
According to the informant, it was only when he saw the photograph in the newspaper the next day that he noticed that some other person had been sent to jail, in place of the person who was caught, and he informed the police inspector and the deputy commissioner of police immediately.
"In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law enforcement, the high court ought not to have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking," the Supreme Court Bench held.
"Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the chargesheet had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high," the Bench further held.
The Bench added that ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.
However, the same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the investigating officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the guilty.
"The respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer. This consideration must necessarily weigh in with the nature of the offences and the possible punishment therefor.
Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a lay person facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office," the Bench ruled.
It thus quashed the high court Order and set aside the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused officer.
Click here to read the order.