The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court pulled up the police authorities for deliberately delaying appropriate action against an accused, noting that despite rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by the High Court and his subsequent plea by the Supreme Court, a 41A CrPC notice was issued. to him suggesting that the police are running a “parallel court”.

Thus, the court ordered the Indore Commissioner of Police to hand over the inquiry to an officer not below the rank of DCP and further directed disciplinary action against the erring police officers observing that their act of willfully defying the court orders constitutes serious misconduct. .

Justice Subodh Abhyankar in order, “This Court also fails to understand how a notice under Section 41-A can be issued to an accused after his anticipatory bail application has been rejected, especially when this Court had also held that his custodial interrogation is necessary, and which order has also been upheld by the Supreme the court, and It seems that the policemen are running their own court, parallel to this court and the Supreme Court, which can no longer be prosecuted.”

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner to get the inquiry transferred from respondent No. 4 viz. SHO, Police Station Banganga, Indore to any other independent investigating agency such as Crime Branch, or CID or CBI to conduct a fair and impartial Investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite the rejection of the anticipatory bail of the accused by the Supreme Court in February and rejection of his special leave by the Supreme Court in July, the respondent-police authorities did not perform their duties and did not even attempt to arrest the accused, which clearly shows their biased attitude. Thus, counsel stated that the investigation should be directed to be handed over to some special authority.

Counsel for the accused submitted that the Supreme Court had not dismissed the special leave of the accused in its entirety and liberty has been extended to him to settle the dues with HDFC Bank and obtain the original sale deed and it will be open to the accused to file a fresh application for granting the advance bond. It was argued that the accused has already filed an anticipatory bail application in the concerned court after settling HDFC Bank’s dues, hence his arrest was not necessary.

“After considering the rival submissions and by perusing the record, it is found that the anticipatory bail application of the accused M.Cr.C.no.51194/2023 was rejected by the court as early as on 8.2.2024; while the special review permit (Crl.) no. 4698/2024 arising from the said decision has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court by its decision dated 08.07.2024, with the liberty as stated above“, the court said.

On perusal of the case diary, the court found that the notice under Section 41A (Notice of appearance before police) Cr.PC had been issued to the accused only after his special leave was rejected by the Supreme Court. “It clearly shows that the police soft-pedaled the accused by waiting for the Supreme Court’s order and deliberately failed to act in rejecting his anticipatory bail.”said the court.

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

Therefore, the court directed the Indore Superintendent of Police to hand over the investigation of the case to an officer not below the rank of DCP. The court further directed the Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the “errant” police officers responsible for issuing notice u/s.41A of Cr.PC to the accused after this court and the Supreme Court rejected his anticipatory bail, which the Supreme Court, said , appeared to be an act of “willful defiance” of the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court amounting to “gross misconduct”.

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

The lawsuit was thus settled.

Case Title: M/S. Praram Infra through its partner Shri Prayank Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Writ Petition No. 30532 of 2024

Click here to read/download order