The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a police constable accused in a custodial death case. The apex court’s decision highlights the need for a stricter approach when considering bail for police officials implicated in serious offenses, particularly those involving custodial deaths.
The case pertains to the death of a person in police custody on February 12, 2021. The deceased had been arrested in connection with a robbery case and taken into custody on February 11, 2021. Following his death, the complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, reported the incident to the authorities.
In total, 19 police officials have been implicated in the offense, and a chargesheet has been submitted against them. The accused police constable, who was granted bail by the High Court, has been charged with offenses under Sections 302 (murder), 330 (voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession), 331 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession), 218 (public servant framing incorrect record), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 (common intention).
The High Court, in its order dated February 15, 2023, had granted bail to the accused police constable. However, the complainant, represented by senior counsel Mr. Dave, challenged the legality of the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had taken over the investigation, also supported the complainant’s case, with Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Bhati representing the agency.
The accused police constable, represented by senior counsel Mr. Balasubramanian, argued that he was merely working as a substitute driver on the day of the incident and had no role in the alleged commission of the offense. This argument had been the primary basis for the High Court’s decision to grant him bail.
However, upon examining the chargesheet and the status report filed by the CBI, the Supreme Court found that there was a specific role attributed to the accused police constable in the commission of the alleged offenses. The court noted that his role was not confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle, as per the materials disclosed by the agency.
While acknowledging that these factors would have to be independently assessed during the trial, the Supreme Court considered them for the purpose of determining the question of bail. The court emphasized that in cases involving custodial deaths where police officials are arraigned as accused, the alleged offenses are of a grave and serious nature, warranting a different approach to bail.
The Supreme Court referred to its recent decision in State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar (2024), authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar, which dealt with the grant of anticipatory bail to a police official accused of interpolations in an FIR. In that case, the court had held that granting bail to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating an investigation would send a wrong signal to society and be against public interest.
Applying the same principle to the present case, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought not to have taken a liberal view in granting bail to the accused police constable, considering the seriousness of the allegations and his position as a member of the police force. The court noted that the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses and evidence was sufficiently high, despite his suspension from service and the filing of the chargesheet.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that in cases of custodial death involving police officials, a stricter view should be taken on the question of granting bail, given the overall influence a member of the police force may wield in such cases. The court also considered the fact that the alleged offense falls under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and that the accused had been granted bail within just one and a half years of his detention.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the accused police constable to surrender before the CBI Court within four weeks. Upon his surrender, the concerned court shall take him into custody. The apex court clarified that its observations in the order relate purely to the question of grant of bail and shall not influence the trial in any way.
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that police officials accused of serious offenses, particularly those involving custodial deaths, must face a higher level of scrutiny when seeking bail. The ruling emphasizes the need to maintain public trust in the law enforcement system and ensures that the gravity of such offenses is duly considered during bail proceedings.
