The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside bail granted to a police officer accused of making interpolations in an FIR.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar was dealing with the appeal challenging the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court by which the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in relation to a case registered Sections 419, 466, 221, 205, 109 and 120-B/ 34 IPC.
In this case, the respondent in this case is accused of making interpolations in the First Information Report. The allegation is that the respondent changed the name of the father of Ranjeet Kumar Saw from Lakhan Saw to Balgovind Saw.
Consequently, Ranjeet Kumar Saw, originally identified as the son of Lakhan Saw, was arrested as the son of Balgovind Saw. This alleged action is believed to have been undertaken to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, from legal consequences.
The respondent was the Investigating Officer registered against Ranjeet Kumar Saw under Sections 420, 475, 201, 109 and 34 IPC along with Sections 65 and and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In the first instance, the respondent’s anticipatory bail petition was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge. The judge based the decision on CCTV footage from Dhanwar Police Station, which revealed multiple meetings between Ranjeet Kumar Saw and the respondent.
The judge also highlighted visible interpolations in the FIR and sufficient evidence suggesting the respondent’s involvement in the alleged offence, leading to the dismissal of the bail petition.
Thereupon, the respondent approached the High Court praying for anticipatory bail which was allowed.
Supreme Court stated that it is unfortunate that the High Court did not deem it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent. More so, as 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 agreed with the view of the Additional Sessions Judge that the alterations in the FIR are clearly visible and it is to be noted that the person who made the alterations did not even choose to initial the same. It cannot be said at this stage as to who made those alterations but being the Investigating Officer in relation to that FIR, it was the responsibility of the respondent to ensure its sanctity.
Supreme Court stated that 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 bench opined that “no doubt, none of the provisions under which the respondent is alleged to have committed offences entail imprisonment in excess of seven years and most of them were bailable offences. Ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would be 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.”
Supreme Court stated that 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.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10499 OF 2023
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
