Police officer who abused office not entitled to presumptions available to regular citizen: Supreme Court cancels bail

A police officer failing in their fundamental duties would not be entitled to considerations available to other citizens in criminal cases, the Supreme Court observed in an order passed on Wednesday [State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar]..A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to a police officer accused of changing the name of the accused in a complaint."In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law enforcement, the High Court ought not to have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking...grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal in society. It would be against public interest," the bench explained.Ordinarily, an accused in such offences is entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail, but the same would not apply here, the Bench made it clear."The same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the guilty. The respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer...Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a layperson facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office.".The Court made the observations while disposing of an appeal against a High Court order that had granted pre-arrest bail to the police officer who was booked for the offences of impersonation and forgery. The officer had allegedly changed the name of the father of one Ranjeet Kumar Saw from Lakhan Saw to Balgovind Saw and subsequently arrested Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, so as to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw.A trial court had earlier rejected his anticipatory bail plea. The allegation was that he had changed the name of the accused in the first information report (FIR) lodged in a case.The top court at the outset observed that in bail cases, circumstances peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public/state also have to be considered."Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the chargesheet had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high", the Bench underscored..The appeal was eventually allowed. The High Court was directed to decide the accused's regular bail free on its own merits if and when the officer is arrested..Additional Standing Counsel Saurabh Jain with Advocates Tulika Mukherjee, Beenu Sharma and Venkat Narayan appeared for the Jharkhand government. Advocates Anup Kumar, Devvrat, Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Neha Jaiswal, Shruti Singh, Ashutosh Jha and Pragya Choudhary represented the accused, one Sandeep Kumar. .[Read judgment]