Police Acted Partially To Shield Real Culprits: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Directs Further Investigation By Senior Officer

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused under the NDPS Act upon noting that the investigation carried out by the investigating officer (IO) was biased in nature. The Court further directed for additional investigation to be carried out by another officer.

“Fair trial and investigation are part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the basic requirement of rule of law is that the investigation must be fair, transparent and in accordance with law. The investigating agency can not be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner so as to take away the fundamental principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty”, affirmed the Court.

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman was hearing a bail application filed by the petitioner who was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act. It was the case of the prosecution that by the effect of a notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the sale and distribution of this Monocoff Plus Syrup (“the Syrup”) was prohibited. The petitioner, who was a pharmacist, was found to be in possession of 100 bottles of this syrup. Consequently, he was booked under the NDPS Act.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was a qualified pharmacist running a licensed medical store. It was contended that the bottles were ordered by the petitioner under proper bills, before the notification came. It was submitted that the delivery was received by the petitioner after publication of the notice and in view of that, not a single bottle of the syrup was sold by the petitioner which depicted his bonafide.

The counsel further assailed the investigation conducted by the police. It was argued that certain CCTV footages and the bills of syrup bottles were submitted by petitioner's father with detailed representation, however, these were not paid heed to by the IO who filed the charge sheet without considering these documents.

Looking at the overall circumstances, the Court observed that since the IO failed to consider important material put forth, a fair and proper investigation was not conducted in the case. It noted that the Court being a constitutional court could not shut its eyes towards a defective investigation.

The Court held that in India, the police were bestowed with the responsibility to conduct the investigation and during that, an IO's primary responsibility was to ascertain the truth. The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali which elaborated on the significance of “fair and proper investigation” in criminal jurisprudence. The case held that firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law, and secondly, it must gear towards bringing out the truth of the case before the court. The Court also referred to the case of Babubayi v State of Gujarat in which it was held that it was the duty of the IO to conduct the investigation without any mischief and harassment to the accused. In this reference, the Court observed the following:

“If the Investigation Officer investigates the crime with a mindset of filing the chargesheet as quickly as possible, the case automatically tilts against the accused. Principles of Natural Justice require the police to not be biased and consider every evidence available, irrespective of the fact if it helps the accused's case or not. It should be a common practice that the Investigating Officer should not shut his eyes to any evidence which the accused brings to his notice. Only then can an investigation be fair, swift and efficient.”

In this background, the Court stated that it was apparent that the police in this case acted in a partial manner to shield the real culprits and worked for their own interest. The Court observed that in case of defective investigation during trial or inquiry, it needs to be cured by directing further investigation by another competent officer.

In light of these circumstances, the Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner and directed further investigation into the matter.

“Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, and the fact that the petitioner is having requisite certificate and drug license to run the medical store, which is not in dispute; the petitioner has not disposed of or sold even a single bottle of the drug in question, which he purchased through bills so also considering the fact that the father of the petitioner submitted a detailed representation along with copy of the bills and relevant CCTV footage to the IO, which was not properly considered by the IO as well as looking to the period of custody of the accused petitioner and absence of criminal antecedents…allow the present bail application,” it was held.

 Title: Mukesh Kumar Khedar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

Click Here To Read/Download Order