E-Paper
‘Not in public interest’: SC denies pre-arrest bail to cop who shielded accused
The FIR against the Jharkhand police officer was registered after the complainant pointed out that police released the accused and arrested an innocent
NEW DELHI: Granting relief such as anticipatory bail to police officers accused of manipulating investigation sends a wrong signal to society as they perform a fiduciary duty to punish the guilty through a fair investigation, the Supreme Court has observed as it cancelled pre-arrest bail granted to the officer in 2022.
“The respondent cop is alleged to have failed in his fundamental duty as a police officer. This consideration must necessarily weigh in with the nature of the offences and the possible punishment thereof. 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,” a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar noted in its order passed on March 6.
The observation was made on an appeal against the high court granting anticipatory bail to Sandeep Kumar, the officer-in-charge of Dhanwar police station on July 6, 2022, who was accused of making changes to the first information report in a cheating and counterfeiting case filed against a person, Ranjeet Kumar Saw, on a complaint by United Spirits Ltd.
The police officer allegedly shielded the accused by changing the name of the accused’s father in the FIR and arrested another person, also called Ranjeet Kumar Saw, who had nothing to do with the case.
When the fraud came to light, the authorities filed a case against the police officer. Sandeep Kumar sought pre-arrest bail from the trial court but the plea was declined. The high court took a liberal view of the offence, noting that the accused would only be sentenced to seven years in prison if convicted and granted Kumar anticipatory bail.
Setting aside the high court order, the Supreme Court noted that an accused facing the prospect of incarceration in such a case would have ordinarily been 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 so as to punish the guilty.”
Also, the top court underlined that granting such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society. “It would be against public interest.”
The court noted that the interpolations made in the FIR could be easily made out and this was a fact which was recorded by the trial court while declining anticipatory bail in April 2022. The changes in the FIR were not signed. The top court underscored that it could not be said at this stage who made the change but it was Sharma’s responsibility to ensure its sanctity as the investigating officer of the case.
The trial court also recorded how the CCTV footage of Dhanwar police station shows the real culprit Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, entering the police station. At 10pm, the other person, Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, entered the police station and was placed under arrest and the accused was released.
Company officials who filed the original FIR later red-flagged the arrest to senior officials when they saw that the photograph of the accused carried by the newspaper was different from the man who was initially taken into custody on November 29. 2021.
The bench said that the HC lost sight of the fact that though he was suspended from service, due to the position he held, there was a high possibility of tampering with the witnesses and the evidence in the case against him. “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 bench said.
“We are of the opinion that the High Court erred on counts more than one in passing the bail order of July 6, 2022. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the said order,” said the court. It added that in the event the accused cop applies for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits and appropriate to the stage of trial, without being influenced by the observations made in the present judgment.
