‘Abuse of authority’: Delhi court rejects IPS officer’s plea for arrest shield

The special judge said IPS officer Shankar Choudhary had “failed to maintain transparency and accountability and conducted himself in a totally defiant manner”

A Delhi court on Saturday rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, Shankar Choudhary, in connection with a criminal case registered against him on charges of unauthorised raids during a 2023 narcotics operation in the city and illegal detention of the suspects.

The court said it was expected that an IPS officer would “maintain integrity and honesty in public service, high ethical standards and discipline in discharge of his duties” (Wikimedia Comons/JK-RULZ)

Dismissing Choudhary’s application, special judge (NDPS) Manu Goel Kharb of Dwarka Courts said this was a classic example of a clear abuse of authority and misuse of power by an IPS officer, who was well-versed in the process of law and an insider to the law enforcement machinery.

“It is expected of a person of the rank of IPS to maintain integrity and honesty in public service, high ethical standards and discipline in discharge of his duties, but the applicant herein failed to maintain transparency and accountability and conducted himself in a totally defiant manner,” the special court said.

Choudhary, a 2011-batch IPS officer, was posted as Superintendent of Police (Narcotics) in the Mizoram Police at the time. He had previously served in Delhi as the deputy commissioner of police (Dwarka) until June 2022, when he was moved out following allegations of involvement in a late-night party brawl. The complaint was later withdrawn, and the police ascribed the original complaint to a communication gap.

Choudhary was, however, transferred to Mizoram the following month.

According to the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Delhi police on February 5 after a vigilance inquiry, Choudhary “personally led raids in the Dabri-Bindapur area between 21 and 29 November 2023 without any written authorisation from the Mizoram government or intimation to Delhi Police headquarters”.

The FIR also accused Choudhary of entering a Nigerian national’s house on November 26 and walking out with a locker and two bags. No seizure memo, inventory list or panchnama was prepared, the document said.

To be sure, the Mizoram Police and the Mizoram government also submitted a report on the incident to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which cited serious procedural lapses and alleged misuse of power and unauthorised operations by the officer.

Additional public prosecutor Vijender Kharb opposed Choudhary’s plea for an arrest shield.

In its order, the special court also cited the CCTV footage that clearly showed Choudhary, accompanied by Delhi Police personnel, entering the residence of one of the detainees and detaining him for over 72 hours and seizing case property without preparing a seizure memo.

“There is much more than that I can see,” the judge said, pointing how the Mizoram government’s probe indicated that he came to the national capital from Mizoram when he was on sanctioned leave which ended on November 20, and decided to stay back in Delhi and lead the Mizoram anti-narcotics team without authorisation.

The court noted that various items were seized during one of the raids, including documents, fake currency notes, and mobile phones. It said Choudhary was also alleged to have fabricated the statements of the three co-accused to connect them to the main kingpin.

“The report of the Mizoram Government suggests that the applicant also needs to be investigated qua the offences of creating false and fabricated documents. The offence committed by the applicant are such which undermines the integrity of the justice system, erodes public trust and tarnishes the image of police as a whole,” the court underlined.

The court said there was a possibility that the high-ranking police officer may influence witnesses and tamper with evidence if granted anticipatory bail.

Choudhary could not be contacted for his comments. In his plea, the officer had denied the charges against him and underlined that the prosecution did not have the requisite sanctions under the Mizoram Police Act to prosecute him.

Lawyer Ankit Bhushan, appearing for the officer, argued during the hearings that the statements of the independent witnesses or members of the raiding team did not point to any misconduct by the officer. Bhushan also contended that the CCTV footage did not show the police officer holding the bag of recoveries, but one of the detainees.