Pre-arrest bail to accused Police Officer – Presumptions and considerations applied to a lay person may not carry same weight while dealing with Police Officer who is alleged to have abused his office and duty.
The Respondent – Officer in Charge of Dhanwar Police Station and Investigating Officer in Crime for offences punishable under Sections 420, 475, 201, 109, 34 of IPC and Sections 65 & 68 of the Copyright Act. It is alleged that the respondent – Police Officer made inerpolations in the FIR changing the name of father of Ranjeet Kumar to Balgovind Saw and arrested Ranjeet Balgovind Saw.
The Sessions Court rejected the pre-arrest bail of the respondent- Police Officer. The High Court, however, granted anticipatory bail to the Police Officer.
HELD, while allowing the appeal of the State Government, it was seen that the accused is a member of a uniformed service, holding responsible position in the police station and serious allegations of wrong alterations in the FIR against a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of enforcement. Therefore, even if the respondent was suspended from the service and the charge sheet is filed against him, the possibility of tampering evidence and the witnesses sufficiently high. Moreover, grant of bail to the police officer facing serious allegations would send out a signal in society and would be against public interest. Thus, the considerations of even if some of the offences are bailable and entail imprisonment in excess of seven years would not be applicable when the accused is IO charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying investigation to rightful conclusion. The consideration that the accused is alleged to have failed in his fundamental duty must necessarily weigh in the nature of offences and possible punishment.
By the order dated 6.7.2022, the High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the accused – Respondent Police Officer.
Criminal Appeal (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10499 of 2023) of the State of Jharkhand Vs. Sandeep Kumar.
