Seeking Equality in Custody: High Court Orders Probe into Police Bias Allegations

In a significant order addressing the bounds of police discretion, the Gujarat High Court has mandated an administrative inquiry into claims of selective treatment during a criminal investigation. The court’s intervention follows a petition filed by Radhikkumar Jayantibhai Dhameliya, who alleged that local authorities afforded preferential treatment to co-accused individuals in a fraud-related FIR.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Remand

The case stems from an FIR registered on September 10, 2024, at the Anand Nagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute revolves around a transaction involving visa processing, which led to criminal charges against multiple individuals.

The petitioner, Radhikkumar Jayantibhai Dhameliya, argued that while he was subjected to custodial remand, two other co-accused—Daksh Kailasgiri Goswami and Arohiben Patel—were released on bail immediately upon their arrest without the police seeking remand. The petitioner contended that as all parties were similarly situated regarding their roles in the alleged offense, the discrepancy in police handling constituted "special treatment" for certain individuals.

Conflicting Narratives: Agency vs. Accusation

During the proceedings, Mr. Prashant Chavda, counsel for the petitioner, urged the court to direct the Commissioner of Police to initiate departmental proceedings against the investigating officer, asserting that the differential treatment was arbitrary.

Conversely, the State, represented by APP Mr. Chintan Dave, defended the police's actions. The State submitted that the distinction in process was not due to bias, but rather valid procedural considerations. Specifically, it was noted that Daksh Kailasgiri Goswami was a cancer patient with a documented history, and Arohiben Patel is a female accused. The State maintained that the petitioner was perceived to have played a "main role" in the alleged offense, justifying the request for remand.

Legal Analysis and Judicial Intervention

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, presiding over the matter, observed that while the State provided a rationale for the differential treatment, the Court was not prima facie satisfied with the explanation provided by the police authorities.

Avoiding an exhaustive determination on the merits of the allegations, the Court focused on the administrative responsibility of the police department to maintain impartiality and transparency. By tasking a senior officer with investigating these claims, the Court emphasized the importance of accountability in investigative processes.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in monitoring the fairness of investigative agencies. Key observations from the Court include:

• "Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, prima facie, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation given by the concerned Police Authority."
• "...without entering into the merits of the matter, ultimately, the aforesaid differential treatment can be considered as administration function of the concerned Authority to look into such matter."
• "Let the concerned D.C.P. Zone – 7 look into the allegations made in the present matter, and if it is found correct, hold proper inquiry and take necessary action."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court disposed of the petition with a clear directive: the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) for Zone-7 is now tasked with examining the allegations of partiality. If the inquiry substantiates the claims of impropriety, the department is directed to hold a proper inquiry and initiate necessary action.

This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement that investigative discretion, while broad, is subject to judicial oversight. The outcome of the DCP’s probe is expected to be a critical test of adherence to fair processing standards, potentially setting a precedent for how future complaints of "selective policing" are addressed within the Gujarat jurisdiction.