"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News