Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Shibin Shiyad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 10332 of 2024
Decided on : 11-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. FRANCIS ASSISI AJEESH S.BRITE DARSANA
For the Respondent: SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
Police officers must wear uniforms and show identification while on duty to ensure legality and public recognition.
Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 121(1), 132, 123 - Bail application - The petitioner, accused of assaulting police officers in mufti, contended that the officers failed to show their identity cards, questioning the legality of the arrest. The court emphasized the necessity of police officers wearing uniforms while on duty, referencing the Kerala Police Manual and prior case law. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 10, 15)
(B) Mufti Policing - The court ruled that mufti policing is permissible only under specific orders and that officers must identify themselves to the public. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of assaulting police officers who were in mufti during an NDPS operation. The officers did not show their identity cards while questioning the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the officers were not in compliance with the requirement to show identification, which is critical for the legality of their actions.
Issues: The main issues were whether police officers in mufti can arrest without showing identity and the legality of the actions taken by the officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that police officers must wear uniforms and show identification while on duty to ensure public recognition and compliance with the law.
Result: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under bnss (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel for the petitioner submitted (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. mufti policing is necessary (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. requirement of wearing uniform (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. bail application is allowed (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
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 th
