Standards Of Granting Bail To Police Officer Different From Layperson : Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Cop Accused Of Wrongful Arrest

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 6) denied pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to a police officer who failed to discharge its fundamental duty as a police officer of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty.

The Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar while reversing the High Court's decision to grant pre-arrest bail to the police officer/respondent, observed that ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proven 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 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 layperson facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office.”, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar said.

The allegation levied against the accused police officer/respondent was that he had made interpolations in the FIR whereby he changed the name of the father of one Ranjeet Kumar Saw, the accused therein, from Lakhan Saw to Balgovind Saw and, thereupon, arrested another Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw.

In the first instance, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the respondent was rejected by the Trial Court which noted that the interpolations in the FIR were visible to the naked eye and that there were sufficient materials indicating the involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence. Holding so, he dismissed the bail petition.

Thereupon, the respondent approached the High Court by way of praying for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused however recorded no reasons whatsoever for granting him such relief.

It is against the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused/respondent that the State of Jharkhand preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, after perusing the impugned bail order of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that an order of bail, bereft of any cogent reason, could not be sustained.

“In Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, this Court noted that, though grant of bail is discretionary, it calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. It was observed that an order of bail, bereft of any cogent reason, could not be sustained.”, the court said.

“Despite this legal position being well settled, it is unfortunate that the High Court did not deem it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent. More so, as the accused, a member of a uniformed service, 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 court added.

Conclusion

“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. 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. That apart, grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest.”, the court observed.

The Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred on counts more than one in passing the impugned bail order, the appeal was accordingly allowed, setting aside the said order granting pre-arrest bail to the police officer/respondent.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Saurabh Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devvrat, AOR Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Adv. Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Adv. Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv.

Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SANDEEP KUMAR, Diary No.- 23716 - 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment