The Delhi High Court strongly rebuked police officials for concealing vital evidence, submitting misleading status reports, and failing to assist the prosecution in a murder case. The Court called their conduct “complete insensitivity” and ordered action against them.
The Delhi High Court reprimanded police officials for various irregularities, including concealing critical information from the Court, submitting misleading status reports, and failing to assist the prosecution in a murder case.
Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked on the “complete insensitivity” of the investigating officer and the Station House Officer (SHO) for not providing necessary support to the prosecutor.
The Court highlighted the shocking situation wherein the SHO omitted vital testimony from a key witness and submitted an incomplete and misleading status report.
The Court stated,
“It is not just a case of the investigating officer and the SHO being completely insensitive to their presence and assistance to the prosecution, it is also a case of a shocking situation where the then SHO PS Bawana filed an incomplete and misleading status report dated 14.07.2025. The erstwhile SHO PS Bawana is stated to be Inspector Rajnikant. In the said status report, the SHO concealed the vital portion of testimony of the star witness of prosecution,”
Consequently, the Court instructed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Delhi Police to take appropriate action against the negligent officials.
The order specified,
“Copy of this order be also sent to the concerned DCP to take appropriate action against the erring officials, who as mentioned above, filed misleading status report after concealing vital material from this Court,”
The petitioner, Aman, faced charges for the murder of a man by gunfire. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
Aman appealed for bail, arguing that he had been incarcerated for over four years without substantial evidence against him.
Justice Kathpalia noted that the police submitted incomplete testimony in their status report to the High Court. It was revealed that the wife of the deceased did not provide complete testimony; on the day of her chief examination, the investigating officer forgot to bring his laptop to show her the CCTV footage of the incident.
As a result, the officer submitted an incomplete account of her testimony, leading to the concealment of crucial evidence from the High Court.
During her continued examination at the trial court, the wife failed to identify Aman in the CCTV footage.
The High Court noted in its order,
“It appears that PW1 was partly chief examined on 08.08.2024 and her further chief examination was deferred because the IO had not brought the laptop to play CCTV footage of the alleged last seen incident. In the status report, only that partial testimony of PW1 was filed. Thereafter, in further chief examination of PW1 recorded on 17.02.2025, which was concealed from this Court, on being played the CCTV footage, PW1 expressed inability to identify the accused/applicant. That portion of testimony of PW1 has been shown today by learned counsel for the accused/applicant and correctness thereof is not disputed by prosecution side,”
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the murder weapon, a .32 bore gun, did not match the .315 bore bullets recovered from the deceased’s body.
Given these circumstances, the Court granted bail to the accused, noting that he had been acquitted in two of the four criminal cases against him, while one had been compounded.
The Court directed,
“I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,”
It also mandated appropriate measures against the negligent police officials.
Advocate Raj Singh Phogat represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for the State.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
