Courts Confront State Machinery: Delhi Police Censured for Misconduct, Thackeray Summoned in Bhima-Koregaon Probe

In a powerful display of judicial oversight and procedural accountability, two separate legal proceedings have cast a harsh spotlight on the conduct of state machinery, raising critical questions for legal practitioners about investigative integrity and the responsibility of public officials. In Delhi, a trial court has ordered high-level action against police officials for filing a "false report" and supervisory failures, while in Maharashtra, a commission of inquiry has put a former Chief Minister on notice for his non-cooperation in the sensitive Bhima-Koregaon violence probe.

These developments, though distinct, converge on a central theme: the judiciary's role in holding executive and investigative bodies accountable to the rule of law. They offer a compelling study for legal professionals on the friction between state power and judicial scrutiny, the complexities of evidence, and the enduring quest for truth within the legal system.

---

Delhi Court Exposes "False Report," Orders Action Against Police Despite Denying Bail

In a striking order from the Karkardooma Courts, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tushar Gupta has initiated action against senior Delhi Police officials for "supervisory lapse" and an Investigating Officer (IO) for filing a "false report to mislead the court." The decision came while paradoxically denying bail to the accused, Mustakeem, in a case involving an alleged firing incident, underscoring the delicate balance courts must strike between evidence of police misconduct and the gravity of the alleged offense.

The case presented two starkly conflicting narratives. The prosecution, representing the Delhi Police, alleged that Mustakeem fired a bullet outside a complainant's house and was captured on CCTV footage fleeing with a "desi katta" (a locally made firearm). Conversely, the defense, led by Advocate Javed Ali, argued a tale of victimization. They claimed Mustakeem and his family were attacked by 6-7 armed assailants while arranging his mother's burial, an altercation that left his father with grievous head injuries. The accused contended that a false FIR was subsequently registered against him, the weapon was planted, and he was arrested after voluntarily appearing at the police station.

Unraveling the Investigation's Flaws

Magistrate Gupta’s order meticulously dissected the inconsistencies in the police investigation. A critical contradiction emerged regarding the circumstances of Mustakeem's arrest. The IO had formally submitted that the arrest was made based on a tip from a "secret informer." However, this official narrative crumbled under the weight of electronic evidence.

“The IO had submitted that the accused was arrested by him on an information received from the secret informer, but the CCTV footage of the police station showed that Mustakeem himself had gone there, a fact which was also confirmed by the cop in question,” the court noted. This direct contradiction led to a scathing indictment of the IO's conduct: “Thus, it can be very well said that the IO has filed a false report in this matter to mislead the court.”

The court's scrutiny extended beyond the false report, highlighting a systemic failure in handling the cross-complaints. It observed the severe head injuries sustained by Mustakeem's father, allegedly inflicted by the complainant's party, yet noted that "appropriate sections were not added by the police in the FIR lodged by him." Furthermore, the court found discrepancies between the original complaint filed by the accused's father and the contents of the registered FIR, suggesting a deliberate dilution of his allegations.

The disparity in police action was palpable. While the complainant and other individuals in the cross-FIR were merely "bound down" and not arrested, Mustakeem, who presented himself at the police station, was taken into custody. The court concluded, “Therefore, it can be said that IO is not investigating the case properly.”

Based on these findings, the court issued a notice to the Joint Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against the IO. It didn't stop there, extending accountability up the chain of command: “Action be also taken on the SHO and ACP concerned for the supervisory lapse on their part.”

The Bail Conundrum: Gravity of Offense vs. Tainted Investigation

Despite the damning critique of the investigation, the court ultimately denied bail to Mustakeem. This decision hinged on the severity of the alleged crime and the existence of countervailing evidence presented by the prosecution—a video purportedly showing the accused running with a firearm.

“Firing a bullet shot outside a house is a serious offense... the gravity and seriousness of the act of the accused/applicant cannot be ignored,” the court reasoned. The presence of a second, yet-to-be-apprehended armed individual in the video further solidified the court's decision, citing the potential risk to public safety. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for legal counsel that even substantial evidence of investigative malpractice may not automatically secure pre-trial liberty when weighed against the gravity of a serious, violent offense.

---

Bhima-Koregaon Commission Summons Thackeray Over Crucial Documents

Meanwhile, the commission probing the 2018 Bhima-Koregaon violence has issued a show cause notice to former Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena (UBT) Chief, Uddhav Thackeray. He is required to explain why a bailable warrant should not be issued against him for failing to produce documents allegedly critical to the inquiry.

The commission, comprising retired Justice Jay Narayan Patel and former State Chief Secretary Sumit Mullick, is tasked with investigating the circumstances that led to the violent clashes between Dalit groups commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon and right-wing outfits.

The issue stems from an application filed by Dalit leader Prakash Ambedkar. He alleges that in 2020, NCP Chief Sharad Pawar submitted a set of documents to then-Chief Minister Thackeray. These documents are purported to contain allegations implicating the then-government, led by Devendra Fadnavis (who was also CM in 2018), and the Pune Police in the violence. Ambedkar has argued that these documents are vital for the commission's fact-finding mission.

Despite receiving two prior notices, Thackeray has failed to respond or produce the documents. This prompted the commission to take a stricter stance. The notice directs Thackeray to appear in person or through a representative on December 2, 2025, to "show cause as to why the said application [for a bailable warrant] should not be allowed." The commission has made it clear that failure to comply will result in further legal action.

This development places a former head of state in a legally precarious position and highlights the expansive powers of commissions of inquiry to compel evidence from even the highest echelons of government. For legal observers, it is a test of the principle that no individual is above the law and that all relevant evidence must be brought to light in the pursuit of justice and reconciliation.

The commission, which has received multiple extensions since its formation in 2018, is now hearing final arguments and is expected to submit its findings in 2026. Thackeray’s response, or lack thereof, could have significant implications for the final report and the political narrative surrounding one of Maharashtra's most contentious recent events.