Shocking: Delhi High Court orders action against police officers for concealing material, misleading court

The Delhi High Court pulled up erring police officials for several irregularities on part of the Delhi Police for concealing vital material from the Court, filing misleading status report and not assisting prosecution in a murder case [Aman@ Prince @ Bhura Vs State NCT of Delhi].

Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the  investigating officer and the Station House Officer (SHO) were “completely insensitive” for not extending assistance to the prosecutor. It also noted the “shocking situation” where the SHO concealed vital testimony of star witness and also filed an incomplete and misleading status report.

“It is not just a case of the investigating officer and the SHO being completely insensitive to their presence and assistance to the prosecution, it is also a case of a shocking situation where the then SHO PS Bawana filed an incomplete and misleading status report dated 14.07.2025. The erstwhile SHO PS Bawana is stated to be Inspector Rajnikant. In the said status report, the SHO concealed the vital portion of testimony of the star witness of prosecution,” the Court stated. 

In light of the above, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of Delhi Police to take appropriate action against the erring police officials. 

“Copy of this order be also sent to the concerned DCP to take appropriate action against the erring officials, who as mentioned above, filed misleading status report after concealing vital material from this Court,” the order said.

The petitioner Aman was accused of committing murder of a man by shooting. A first information report (FIR) was lodged under applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act.

Aman moved the Court seeking bail. He contended that he has been in jail for over four years and that there was no evidence against him.

Justice Kathpalia observed that incomplete testimony was filed by the police in its status report submitted to the High Court.

It observed that the testimony of the wife of deceased man was not complete. It came to light that on the day of her chief examination before trial court, the investigation officer forgot to bring his laptop to show her a CCTV footage of the incident.

Therefore, the investigation officer filed an incomplete testimony of the wife in the status report, which amounted to concealment of vital evidence from the High Court.

When the wife's examination continued before trial court, she did not identify the accused Aman in the CCTV footage. 

"It appears that PW1 was partly chief examined on 08.08.2024 and her further chief examination was deferred because the IO had not brought the laptop to play CCTV footage of the alleged last seen incident. In the status report, only that partial testimony of PW1 was filed. Thereafter, in further chief examination of PW1 recorded on 17.02.2025, which was concealed from this Court, on being played the CCTV footage, PW1 expressed inability to identify the accused/applicant. That portion of testimony of PW1 has been shown today by learned counsel for the accused/applicant and correctness thereof is not disputed by prosecution side," the High Court noted in its order.

Further, the Court observed that the murder weapon recovered was a gun of .32 bore, whereas the bullets recovered from the deceased’s body was of .315 bore.

In light of the above, Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused upon noting that of the four criminal cases against him, he was acquitted in two cases and one case was compounded. 

“I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,” the Court directed. 

It also directed appropriate action against the erring police officials.

Advocate Raj Singh Phogat appeared for the accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for State.

[Read Judgment]