Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Krishna Murari, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Sanjay Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11377 of 2022
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Bail application – Scope and ambit – Direction to hold departmental enquiry against appellant Police Officer for dereliction of duty – Stricto sensu, in a petition under Section 439 of Code, concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering specific issue, whether to grant bail or reject bail to accused in custody – However, High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers – High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution – Powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where High Court feels that some directions/orders are required in interest of justice – High Court, being satisfied that there were grave lapses on part of police/investigative machinery which may have fatal consequences on justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes – Facts of case prima facie disclose that in such an important and sensitive case, there had been, at least prima facie, callousness on part of police officers concerned, including appellant, in conducting a proper investigation to bring on record all relevant materials in support of truth – Amidst such backdrop, chances of undue benefit accruing to accused, leading to miscarriage of justice cannot be ruled out – Appeal dismissed with caveat that High Court’s observations are not to be treated as findings against appellant. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2022 rendered by a Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 43998 of 2022, in which a finding, prima facie, of being guilty of dereliction of duty against the appellant has been recorded. Further, it was observed in Impugned Judgment that the appellant is not fit to be assigned any important responsibility in the Police Department and is unfit to hold any responsible post.
Findings of Court:
Interim order dated 23.11.2022, in present case, is vacated. However, it is made clear that any observation(s) made by the High Court in relation to appellant in the judgment impugned shall not cause any prejudice to him in the departmental proceedings which shall take its own course, in accordance with law, and after providing full and effective opportunity to appellant.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) rendered by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in MCRC No. 43998 of 2022, in which a finding, albeit prima facie, of being guilty of dereliction of duty against the appellant has been recorded. Further, it was observed in the Impugned Judgment that the appellant is not fit to be assigned any important responsibility in the Police Department and is unfit to hold any responsible post. It has further been noted that the Superintendent of Police, Katni had already line-attached the appellant and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty, for which he would get conducted a preliminary enquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police and forward the report to the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of a major penalty.
4. The Impugned Judgment also records a ‘direction’ issued to take appropriate action against the appellant for dereliction of duty, insubordination and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the High Court.
THE FACTUAL PRISM:
5. The Appellant was an Inspector of Sleemanabad Police Station, Katni where FIR No. 424 of 2021 dated 18.07.2021 was registered against the accused therein, one Shiv Kumar Kushwah (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) under Sections 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”), Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report (hereinafter referred to as the “FSL Report”) was forwarded to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be undertaken. However, the DNA examination was not carried out. In the meantime, the accused filed MCRC No. 43998 of 2022 seeking bail before the High Court.
6. During the proceedings, the High Court called for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith. This led the High Court to seek the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Katni and the In-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. On 21.09.2022, the duo mentioned supra appeared before the High Court, and informed that the FSL Report was sent to the office of Superintendent of Police, Katni on 25.10.2021. The Superintendent of Police, Katni stated that the FSL report was forwarded to the appellant along with communication dated 27.10.2021, with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be carried out. However, the same was not done, as the appellant took the stand that the concerned Woman Sub-Inspector had not brought the FSL Report to his knowledge.
7. The learned Government Advocate for the State stated before the High Court that the case-diary had been received in the Office of the learned Advocate General on 13.09.2022, but the FSL Report was not included therewith. This prompted the High Court to pass the Impugned Judgment, as discussed above.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused had filed MCRC No. 43998 of 2022 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), which only relates to grant of bail to an accused in custody. Thus, the direction to take action and hold a departmental enquiry as also the recording of finding against the appellant cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Cou
Stricto sensu, in a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., concerned Court ought not to travel beyond considering specific issue, whether to grant bail or reject bail to accused in custody – However,....
The judgment establishes the principle of judicial restraint and circumspection in commenting on the conduct of police officials, emphasizing the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in interferin....
The duty assigned to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station, as per Rule 81 of the Police Manual, requires more than just forwarding communications to the investigating officer. The co....
Importance of accurate records and compliance with SOPs in the bail process, caution against immediate disciplinary actions without ascertaining the actual facts from the Police Department.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
