MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Manipulation of Investigation by Police Officer Cannot Be Overlooked: Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Order of Police Officer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to Sandeep Kumar, a police officer accused of wrongful arrest and manipulation of an FIR. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar in their decision [2024 INSC 179] underscored the gravity of the allegations, emphasizing that "Manipulation of investigation by a police officer cannot be overlooked."

The key legal issue addressed was the improper grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court, especially in a sensitive case involving alleged misconduct by a police officer.

Sandeep Kumar, the Officer-in-Charge and Investigating Officer in the Dhanwar PS Case No. 296 of 2021, was accused of altering an FIR to wrongfully arrest an individual and shield the actual accused. His anticipatory bail plea was initially rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge but later accepted by the High Court, a decision that the Supreme Court found to be unjustified.

The Apex Court meticulously discussed the role and conduct of police in investigations, reiterating that officers have a heightened responsibility in maintaining the sanctity of investigations. The judgement pointed out the need for careful consideration in bail decisions, particularly in cases involving police officers, due to their potential impact on public trust and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of the nature of the allegations against a law enforcement officer. The Court observed, "grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation... would be against public interest."

Date of Decision: March 6, 2024

State of Jharkhand vs. Sandeep Kumar

Latest Legal News