Delhi Court Slams Police for False Report and Shoddy Probe, Yet Denies Bail to Accused in Firing Case

New Delhi – In a striking order that underscores the complexities of judicial balancing, a Delhi court has initiated stern action against multiple police officials for filing a "false report" and significant "supervisory lapses," while simultaneously denying bail to the accused at the center of the flawed investigation. The decision from the Karkardooma Courts highlights a critical tension between upholding procedural integrity and addressing the gravity of alleged offenses.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Tushar Gupta, presiding over the bail hearing in State Vs. Mustakeem , delivered a scathing critique of the investigation, going so far as to issue a notice to the Joint Commissioner of Police to take disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer (IO) and initiate proceedings against the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for their failure in supervision.

Despite castigating the police for attempting to mislead the court and conducting a biased probe, the magistrate rejected the bail application of the accused, Mustakeem, citing the serious nature of the allegations against him. A compliance report on the action taken against the officers has been ordered for November 3, 2025.

The Core of the Controversy: A Tale of Two FIRs

The case originates from a violent altercation that reportedly occurred near a burial ground between the family of the accused, Mustakeem, and the complainant's party during the burial of Mustakeem's mother. The aftermath saw the registration of cross-FIRs, a common feature in such disputes, but it was the Delhi Police's handling of these competing complaints that drew the court's ire.

Mustakeem's counsel, Sh. Javed Khan, argued that his client was a victim of a targeted attack by 6-7 armed assailants and had been falsely implicated. He contended that despite his father lodging a written complaint detailing grievous injuries, the police registered a manipulated FIR against them and arrested Mustakeem, who had voluntarily gone to the police station.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Sh. Kamal Kapoor, painted a different picture, alleging that Mustakeem fired a bullet outside the complainant’s house. Their primary evidence was CCTV footage purportedly showing Mustakeem running near the scene with a desi katta (country-made pistol).

Unraveling the "False Report": IO's Contradiction Under Scrutiny

The turning point in the court's assessment of the police's conduct was a glaring contradiction regarding Mustakeem's arrest. The IO's official report stated that the accused was apprehended based on information from a "secret informer." This narrative, however, crumbled when confronted with evidence.

The court noted that CCTV footage from the police station itself unequivocally showed Mustakeem walking in on his own accord. In a dramatic moment during the hearing, the IO, SI Rajiv, who was present in person, confirmed this fact when questioned by the magistrate. This admission led to the court's sharp conclusion: “Thus, it can very well be said that the IO has filed a false report in this matter to mislead the court.”

This finding goes beyond a mere procedural error, striking at the heart of the investigative process and the duty of police officers to present facts truthfully before the judiciary.

A Biased Investigation: Discrepancies and Supervisory Failures

ACJM Gupta’s order detailed a pattern of investigative bias that appeared to favour the complainant's side. The court made several critical observations:

• Downgrading Injuries and Charges: The court observed photographs showing that Mustakeem's father had sustained "grievous injuries on his head," allegedly inflicted by the complainant and others. Despite this, the police failed to add the appropriate, more serious penal provisions to the FIR filed on his complaint.
• Selective Arrests: While Mustakeem was arrested promptly based on the cross-complaint, the individuals accused of grievously injuring his father were not arrested. This disparity in police action suggested a prejudiced approach to the investigation.
• Alteration of Facts: The magistrate found significant discrepancies between the original complaint submitted by Mustakeem's father and the text of the FIR that was eventually registered, indicating that facts were altered to benefit the other party.

These cumulative findings led the court to conclude that the IO was "not investigating the case properly." The blame, however, was not limited to the IO alone. In a move to enforce accountability up the chain of command, the court explicitly directed action against the SHO and ACP for their "supervisory lapse," signalling that senior officers are responsible for the integrity of investigations conducted under their watch.

The Bail Conundrum: Why Was Bail Denied?

Ordinarily, such damning judicial observations about the investigation's fairness and the credibility of the police report would create strong grounds for granting bail. The court itself acknowledged this, remarking that these factors would have typically led it to grant relief.

However, the plea was ultimately dismissed due to countervailing evidence: separate CCTV footage that, according to the prosecution, depicted Mustakeem running with a firearm near the complainant's house. This piece of evidence, despite the surrounding investigative flaws, proved decisive.

The magistrate reasoned that the allegation of firing a weapon in a residential area was a grave matter that could not be overlooked. “Firing a bullet shot outside a house is a serious offence. The fact is yet to be established and proved, but the gravity and seriousness of the act cannot be ignored,” the court held. It also noted that another individual seen with a weapon in the footage remained at large.

In a carefully worded caveat, the court clarified that its observations on the police's conduct were not to be construed as comments on the ultimate merits of the case, thereby preserving the integrity of the future trial.

Legal Implications and Professional Takeaways

This order from the Karkardooma Courts serves as a powerful case study for legal professionals on several fronts:

1. Judicial Oversight in Action: The court’s proactive stance in scrutinizing police reports and questioning the IO directly demonstrates the vital role of the magistracy as a check on executive power. It reinforces the principle that courts will not act as a mere "post office" for police narratives.
   
   
2. The Weight of Evidence in Bail Hearings: The decision illustrates the delicate balance courts must strike during bail considerations. Even where there is strong evidence of police misconduct and potential false implication, direct evidence linking the accused to a serious offense (like the CCTV footage here) can outweigh procedural lapses in the court's assessment of flight risk or danger to society.
   
   
3. Defence Strategy: For defence counsel, this case highlights the importance of procuring and presenting evidence that contradicts the official police version, such as the police station's CCTV footage. It proved instrumental in exposing the "false report," even if it did not secure immediate bail.
   
   
4. Accountability Mechanisms: The direction to the Joint Commissioner of Police is a significant step towards enforcing departmental accountability. The requirement of a compliance report ensures that the court's directives are not merely observations on paper but are followed by concrete action, the outcome of which will be monitored by the court itself.

The State Vs. Mustakeem matter is now a compelling illustration of the judiciary's capacity to simultaneously condemn state misconduct and uphold public safety concerns, leaving both the police department and the accused to face further legal scrutiny.