When the File Goes Missing: High Court Grants Interim Relief Following Police Lapses

In a stinging rebuke to the investigating authorities, the Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a petitioner seeking anticipatory bail, citing a "shocking" lack of professionalism and regard for legal procedure exhibited by the local police.

The Backdrop: Allegations of Forgery

The petitioner, Shankar, approached the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 291/2020, registered at Police Station Maidan Garhi, South District. The charges against him include offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The state alleges that the petitioner forged documents related to the sale of an immovable property, with further claims that the notarization on these documents was fabricated.

A Frustrating Absence: The Court’s Grievance

When the matter came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia, the proceedings hit a significant procedural wall. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the investigating officer (IO) and the Station House Officer (SHO) failed to appear in court.

While the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) attempted to present the state's case—noting that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports corroborated that the signatures on the subject documents were not genuine—the court found that the essential investigation file was absent. Because the representative present was not the IO and could not provide access to the case diary, the court was unable to conduct a comprehensive review of the ongoing investigation.

Key Observations

The frustration of the court was palpable, as Justice Kathpalia highlighted the broader implications of such administrative failures:

• On police negligence: "It is shocking to note that despite repeated directions, neither the IO nor the SHO has appeared. SI Saurabh has appeared but without the investigation file. This in itself shows the scant regard for liberty in the eyes of the concerned IO and SHO."
• On the duty of the state: "It could also entail grant of anticipatory bail because the police does not seem interested in opposing the same."
• On systemic failure: "Earlier, the Investigating Officers used to brief the prosecutor in the evening before the hearing or at least early morning on the date of hearing. Now it is being noticed that... the investigators either would not appear or would brief the prosecutor only after hearing has commenced."

Court’s Decision: Protecting Rights Amid Chaos

Despite the serious nature of the criminal allegations, the Court prioritized the necessity of judicial oversight. Rather than rejecting the plea due to the lack of police cooperation—which might unfairly prejudice the accused—or granting permanent relief prematurely, the court balanced the scales by issuing interim directions:

1. Interim Protection: The petitioner was granted relief from arrest until the next date of hearing.
2. Compliance: The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by the IO in writing.
3. Corrective Action: The court ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), with the expectation that the department will take serious measures to "streamline the system" and prevent future lapses of this nature.

The matter is now scheduled to be relisted on August 27, 2025, by which time the state is required to file a formal status report. This order serves as a stern reminder that the liberty of an individual cannot be compromised by the administrative inefficiency of investigative agencies.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on the court order dated 08.07.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 2406/2025.