On Wednesday (6th March): The Supreme Court revoked the bail granted to a police officer accused of abusing their authority by altering the name of a suspect in a complaint. Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar emphasized that officers failing in their fundamental duties forfeit entitlements typically available to citizens in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of upholding integrity within law enforcement.
New Delhi: On Wednesday, The Supreme Court revoked the bail granted to a police officer accused of abusing their authority by altering the name of a suspect in a complaint.
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar, presiding over the bench, annulled the anticipatory bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to a police officer charged with altering the name of an accused individual in a complaint.
The court expressed concern over serious allegations against a senior police officer, an important person in law enforcement. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s lenient stance, stating that granting relief to an officer accused of manipulating an investigation to favor a suspect sends the wrong message to society and is contrary to the public interest.
“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. The grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out the wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest,” the bench explained.
Representing the Jharkhand Government were Additional Standing Counsel Saurabh Jain, along with Advocates Tulika Mukherjee, Beenu Sharma, and Venkat Narayan. Advocates Anup Kumar, Devvrat, Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Neha Jaiswal, Shruti Singh, Ashutosh Jha, and Pragya Choudhary acted on behalf of the accused, Sandeep Kumar.
READ ALSO: BREAKING | Sandeshkhali Row | CBI Gets Custody of Shahjahan Sheikh
“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 so as to punish the guilty. The respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer. 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.”
While individuals accused of similar offenses might qualify for pre-arrest bail, the bench clarified that this principle doesn’t extend to law enforcement officers. The duties entrusted to a police officer, particularly an investigating officer, involve a fiduciary obligation to ensure a fair investigation and prosecute the guilty. The respondent’s alleged failure to perform this duty warranted different considerations.
Background
The case was initiated after an officer was accused of impersonation and forgery for allegedly altering the name of the father of a suspect in a complaint. Despite a rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by a trial court, the High Court granted him pre-arrest bail.
The Supreme Court highlighted that in bail cases, the circumstances of the accused and the broader public and state interests must be weighed. Given the respondent’s position and the potential for witness tampering or evidence manipulation, the court deemed the risk substantial.
The appeal was upheld, and the High Court was instructed to assess the accused’s regular bail application impartially and determine whether the officer should be arrested.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar
