The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticised the State for suspending a police officer who raided an IAS officer’s farmhouse, calling the action arbitrary. It warned that suspension orders would deter officers from raiding premises for fear of suspension.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has set aside the suspension of Police Station Incharge Lokendera Singh Hihore, calling the action arbitrary, disproportionate and taken with a clear lack of application of mind.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed his writ petition and held that the suspension order dated 11 March 2026 could not stand in the eyes of law because it appeared to be a vindictive reaction to a lawful and successful raid conducted by the officer.
The Court noted that the State did not place on record any particular operational order or statutory requirement that Hihore had allegedly violated. It further held that the State’s assertion that Hihore failed to gather intelligence was inconsistent with the intelligence-led raid that was ultimately carried out successfully.
The Court further added,
“If such suspension orders were permitted to continue, no officer would even dare to raid any premises due to fear of suspension. “
The Bench said,
“Penalizing a law enforcement officer for the prompt, efficient, and successful execution of his statutory duties is antithetical to the very concept of ‘grave misconduct’ and shocks the conscience of this Court,”
The Bench said, while quashing the suspension,
“Moreover, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are inherently contradictory. On one hand, during the appreciation of facts, the officer observes that the petitioner is not directly liable; yet, at the time of drawing the conclusion, he abruptly recommends that the petitioner is liable to be suspended,”
Hihore, a sub-inspector from the 2007 batch, conducted a raid on a farmhouse in Gram Avlipura on the night of March 10–11. During the raid, over 20 persons were reportedly found indulging in illegal gambling, resulting in the seizure of a large amount of cash, mobile phones, and vehicles.
The petitioner, a 2007 batch Sub Inspector with more than 300 awards, an A+ ACR and several appreciation letters from national and international agencies, had been posted as SHO Manpur before his suspension.
The case records show that on the night of 10–11 March 2026, while on night patrolling duty, he received specific intelligence about a large gambling racket running inside a farmhouse named “Kothi Niwas” at Gram Avlipura.
He immediately obtained a search warrant, gathered independent witnesses, mobilised his team and raided the premises. More than 20 people were found gambling, and cash, mobile phones and vehicles were seized.
It later came to light that the farmhouse belonged to a sitting IAS officer serving as Managing Director in the MP Finance Corporation.
According to the petition, as soon as the raid ended, heavy pressure and threats started coming from different quarters asking the SHO not to register the FIR or to distort the crime scene to protect the farmhouse owner. The SHO did not bow to the pressure and registered the FIR on 11 March 2026 with the correct place of occurrence. Within hours, the suspension order was issued against him.
The petitioner argued that the suspension was illegal, arbitrary and a clear example of misuse of power against an honest officer. He said that the order was passed in violation of Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, because there was no disciplinary enquiry pending or contemplated, nor was he facing any criminal case.
He also pointed out that the authorities, in their rush, even suspended an ASI who was on medical leave. He highlighted that another gambling racket busted at Simrol Police Station days later did not result in suspension of that SHO, showing discriminatory action.
On the other side, the State claimed that the suspension was lawful and issued because the petitioner failed to follow general instructions given in crime review meetings about strengthening intelligence and curbing illegal activities.
The State said that the suspension was in contemplation of a departmental enquiry and that the preliminary enquiry found him negligent.
The Court examined the entire record and emphasised the established principles that suspension is not a punishment but a preventive step, and it must not be used routinely or vindictively.
Case Title: Lokendra Singh Hihore v State of Madhya Pradesh