Police issued notice to appear for accused after denying anticipatory bail, seems to be running ‘parallel court’: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held the police authorities accountable for willfully delaying taking appropriate action against the accused, observing that despite the rejection of his bail plea by the high court and his subsequent petition by the Supreme Court, a notice was issued under section 41A CrPC. him, pointing out that the police were running a “parallel court.”

At the same time, the court directed the Indore Police Commissioner to transfer the investigation to an officer not below the rank of DCP and also took disciplinary action against the erring police officers, noting that their act of willful disobedience of court orders constituted a serious offense. .

Justice Subodh Abhyankar in his own way remarked: “This Court also fails to understand how a notice under Section 41-A can be issued to an accused after rejecting his anticipatory bail application, especially when this Court has also stated that his custodial interrogation is necessary and which order has also been confirmed by the Supreme Court, And It appears that the police officers are running their own court parallel to this court as well as the Supreme Court, which can no longer be tolerated.”

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner to transfer the investigation from respondent No. 4 i.e. SHO, Bangangi Police Station, Indore to any other independent investigation agency like Crime Branch or CID or CBI for conducting a fair and impartial investigation. Investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused and the refusal to grant him special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in July, the respondent police authorities failed to discharge their duties and acted. even try to arrest the accused, which clearly shows their biased approach. Thus, the lawyer argued that the investigation should be transferred to some special body.

Counsel for the accused argued that the Supreme Court has not rejected the special leave to appeal to the accused in its entirety and he has been given the liberty to pay the dues with HDFC Bank and obtain the original sale deed and it will be open for the accused to file a fresh application for grant early bail. It was submitted that the accused had already filed a bail application in the concerned court after paying off the debts of HDFC Bank and therefore there was no need for his arrest.

“Having considered the arguments of the opponents and having read the records, it was established that the accused’s request for early release on bail M.Cr.C.no.51194/2023 was rejected by the court as early as 02/08/2024; whereas Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. Judgment No. 4698/2024 arising from the said order was also rejected by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 07/08/2024 subject to the above said liberty.“, the court said.

After perusing the case diary, the court found that notice under Section 41A (Notice to Appear before Police Officer) Cr.PC was issued to the accused only after his special leave to appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. “This clearly demonstrates that the police were lenient on the accused while awaiting the Supreme Court order and deliberately failed to act after refusing his anticipatory bail.”– said the court.

The court also expressed concern as to how a notice under Section 41-A could be issued to the accused after his anticipatory bail application was rejected, especially when the High Court also said that his custodial interrogation was necessary and what order was also confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the court directed the Indore Police Commissioner to hand over the investigation of the case to an officer not below the rank of DCP. The Court also directed the Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the “erring” police officers responsible for issuing notice U/s.41A Cr.PC to the accused after the rejection of his anticipatory bail by this Court and the Supreme Court which, according to the Supreme Court, appeared to be an act of ” willful disobedience” of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court amounting to “serious misconduct”.

“It is clear that this court has not considered the merits of the case and the accused’s application for anticipatory bail, which he filed in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court, must be decided by the trial court on its merits. without being influenced by this order.”– said the court.

Thus, the claim was granted.

Case name: M/S. Praram Infra through its partner Shri Prayanka Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Petition No. 30532 of 2024.

Click here to read/download order