Police Issued Notice To Appear To Accused After Rejection Of Anticipatory Bail, Seem To Be Running A "Parallel Court": Madhya Pradesh HC
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court pulled up the police authorities for wilfully delaying appropriate action against an accused, noting that despite rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by the high court and his subsequent plea by Supreme Court, a section 41A CrPC notice was issued to him indicating that the police is running a "parallel court".
In doing so the court directed the Indore police commissioner to hand over the investigation to an officer not lower than the rank of DCP and further directed disciplinary action against the erring police officers observing that their act of wilful defiance of the court orders amounts to major misconduct.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar in its order observed, "This Court is also at loss to understand as to how a notice under Section 41-A can be issued to an accused after his application for anticipatory bail is rejected, specially when this Court had also stated that his custodial interrogation is necessary, and which order has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and it appears that the police officers are running their own court, parallel to this Court as well as the Supreme Court, which cannot be countenanced anymore.”
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner to get the investigation transferred from the Respondent No. 4 i.e. SHO, Police Station Banganga, Indore to any other Independent Investigating Agency, such as Crime Branch, or CID or CBI to conduct a fair and unbiased Investigation.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the rejection of anticipatory bail of the accused by the high court in February and rejection of his Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court in July, the respondent-police authorities did not perform their duties and did not even try to arrest the accused, which clearly shows their biased approach. Thus, the counsel submitted that the investigation should be directed to be handed over to some special agency.
The accused's counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had not rejected the Special Leave to Appeal of the accused in toto, and liberty has been extended to him to settle the dues with the HDFC Bank and procure the original sale deed, and it will be open to the accused to file a fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the accused has already filed an anticipatory bail plea before the concerned court after settling the dues of the HDFC Bank, and so his arrest was not necessary.
"Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the record, it is found that the anticipatory bail application M.Cr.C.no.51194/2023 of the accused was rejected by this Court way back on 08.2.2024; whereas, the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 4698/2024 arising out of the said order has also been rejected by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 08.07.2024, with the liberty as aforesaid," the court said.
Upon perusal of the case diary, the court found that the notice under Section 41A(Notice of appearance before police officer) Cr.P.C. had been issued to the accused only after his Special Leave to Appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. “It clearly demonstrates that the police were soft-pedalling the accused, by waiting for the order of the Supreme Court, and deliberately did not act upon the rejection of his anticipatory bail.”, the Court said.
The court also expressed concern as to how a notice under Section 41-A could be issued to an accused after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected, especially when the High Court had also stated that his custodial interrogation is necessary, and which order had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the court directed Indore's Commissioner of Police to hand over the investigation of the case to an Officer not below the rank of D.C.P.. The court further directed Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the "erring" police officers who are responsible for issuance of notice u/s.41A of Cr.P.C. to the accused after rejection of his anticipatory bail by this court and the Supreme Court, which the high court said, appeared to be an act of "wilful defiance" of the orders passed by the High court and the Supreme Court amounting to a "major misconduct".
“It is made clear that this Court has not reflected upon the merits of the case, and the accused's application for anticipatory bail which he has filed pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court, shall be decided by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by this order.”, the Court said.
Thus, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: M/S. Praram Infra Through Its Partner Shri Prayank Jain Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 30532 of 2024