Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Shibin Shiyad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 10332 of 2024
Decided on : 11-02-2025
For the Appellant : FRANCIS ASSISI, AJEESH S.BRITE, DARSANA
For the Respondent: SRI.HRITHWIK C.S.
Police officers in Mufti must show identity cards to claim protection under relevant sections; failure to do so raises questions about the legality of their actions.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 121(1), 123, 132 - Bail application - Police officers in Mufti must show identity cards to claim protection under relevant sections - The petitioner was accused of assaulting police officers while they were on Mufti duty without showing their identity - The court emphasized the necessity of police uniforms for identification and the requirement of specific orders for Mufti policing. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 15)
(B) Bail - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception was reiterated, with conditions imposed for the petitioner’s release. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, along with others, was accused of assaulting police officers who were in Mufti during a narcotics operation. The officers did not show their identity cards, leading to questions about the legality of their actions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the police must wear uniforms while on duty unless specifically authorized to do otherwise and that the absence of identity cards could lead to misunderstandings.
Issues: The main issues were whether police officers in Mufti can arrest without showing identity cards and the legality of their actions during the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that police officers must be in uniform while on duty, and Mufti policing requires specific orders and identification to ensure public trust and safety.
Result: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
-
Police officers operating in Mufti must carry and show their identity cards when claiming protection under relevant sections. Failure to do so raises questions about the legality of their actions (!) (!) .
-
Mufti policing is permissible only under specific orders and for limited, special purposes. Such orders should explicitly authorize Mufti duty and require officers to carry identity cards and introduce themselves as police personnel (!) (!) (!) .
-
Uniforms serve as a primary means of police identification, symbolizing authority and ensuring public trust. Police officers in uniform are immediately recognizable, whereas Mufti officers must have specific orders and identification to prevent misuse or impersonation (!) (!) .
-
In the absence of a specific order authorizing Mufti duty, and without officers showing their identity cards, it is difficult to establish that the police officers involved were acting within lawful authority or that the accused were aware of their police status at the time of the incident (!) .
-
The general principle is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and considers the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the necessity of investigation, to decide bail applications (!) (!) (!) .
-
Conditions for bail may include appearing before the investigating officer within a stipulated time, executing a bond with sureties, cooperating with the investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and refraining from committing similar offences (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
If the conditions of bail are violated, the court has the authority to cancel bail, and the prosecution may approach the appropriate court for such cancellation (!) .
-
The investigation remains ongoing, and no final conclusions are drawn about the commission of offences. The court's observations are limited to the prima facie assessment for bail purposes (!) .
-
The court emphasizes the importance of police accountability, proper procedures, and adherence to statutory provisions when conducting Mufti policing, to maintain public trust and prevent misuse of authority (!) (!) .
-
The order authorizing police action must be specific and documented; general or vague orders do not suffice to justify Mufti policing without proper identification and authorization (!) (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document, please let me know.
ORDER :
Whether the police officer in Mufti can arrest a person without showing his identity card is the question to be decided in this bail application.
2. This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by the accused in Crime No. 1482/2024 of Kottayam East Police Station. The petitioner is the 1st accused. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Secs. 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 132, 123 and 121(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The above case is registered based on the statement given by the Grade Sub Inspector, Antony Michael attached to Vakathanam Police Station. The statement was given on 24.10.2024 at 8.30 pm. According to the Sub-Inspector, he and CPO 8130 Shebin Peter were on Mufti duty in connection with the NDPS Special Drive. They were travelling on a motorbike within the jurisdiction of their Police Station. On that day, at 4.30 pm, when they reached Kaithepalam bridge, they joined duty with the mobile party of Kottayam East Police Station. At that time, the defacto complainant and the policeman accompanying him found two persons going on a bike and when there was a suspicion about them, the defacto complainant and the accompanying policeman followed them. At that time, they saw the persons, who were on the bike chatting with three other individuals. The defacto complainant and the accompanying policeman stopped the bike and informed them that they were policemen and asked them why they were standing there. At that time, it is stated that two of them sprayed a liquid on their face and body. Thereafter, they ran away from the place. Subsequently, the East Police Station SI and the police party stopped three persons among them. The defacto complainant and the accompanying police constable went to the hospital for treatment. Hence, it is alleged that the accused persons wrongfully restrained and deterred the public servants from discharging their official duty. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only non-bailable offences alleged are under secs. 132, 123, and 121(1) BNS. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the above offences are not attracted. The main point raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the policemen were in Mufti and they did not show their identity cards to the accused. Unless the same is shown, they cannot claim the benefit of Sec. 132 and 121(1) of the BNS, when they are in mufti is the submission. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a clear case in which the petitioner and the other accused assaulted the public servants when they were discharging their official duty. The Public Prosecutor also made available the wound certificate of the injured and submitted that the offences under Secs. 132 and 121(1) are made out. It is also submitted that pepper spray is used by the accused and therefore, Sec. 123 of the BNS is also attracted.
6. When this case came up for consideration, this Court requested the Public Prosecutor Sri. Hrithwik CS to address the point raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that Mufti policing is necessary in certain situations. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, if a police officer in uniform reaches a place, in some cases, the accused would escape immediately. Therefore, Mufti policing is necessary, especially in drug cases. The Public Prosecutor took me through the Government order constituting the Narcotic Special Action Force to tackle the drug-related crimes and the order renaming it as 'Anti Narcotic Task Force'. The Public Prosecutor submitted that in narcotic cases, Mufti policing is necessary to find out the culprits. This Court directed the
