MP High Court Directs SP To Probe 'Casual' Investigation By Officer In Excise Case, Grants Bail To Accused Arrested After 6 Months

"The concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to initiate inquiry into the matter against the investigating officer so that the said fact should not be repeated in future by any investigating officer who is dealing with such cases," Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in a notable order, has directed the Superintendent of Police to initiate a formal inquiry against an Investigating Officer for conducting a "casual" and "vague" probe in an excise matter.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, while granting bail to the applicant, observed that the investigation lacked basic due diligence, as the officer failed to examine key witnesses or the notary involved in an alleged agreement of sale. The Court emphasized that such procedural lapses should not be repeated by officers dealing with similar criminal cases.

The matter arose from Crime No. 477/2025 where the police intercepted a truck carrying illegal liquor, though the driver managed to flee under the cover of darkness. The applicant, Kamru, was subsequently arrested on April 15, 2026, based on a statement made by the vehicle owner regarding an alleged sale agreement. He was charged under Sections 34(2) and 46 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, and sought bail on the grounds of false implication and a lack of evidence.

The primary question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail considering he was arrested six months after the incident based solely on an unverified sale agreement. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the Investigating Officer’s failure to examine essential witnesses and the notary constituted a procedural lapse necessitating a departmental inquiry.

Court Criticizes Casual Approach Of Investigating Officer

The Court expressed significant dissatisfaction with the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the police. It was noted that the applicant was arrested nearly six months after the initial incident based on an alleged agreement of sale that the prosecution claimed was in favor of the applicant. The bench observed that the Investigating Officer had been "very casual" in his duties, resulting in a vague and incomplete investigation that lacked evidentiary depth.

Failure To Verify Documentary Evidence

Justice Pillai specifically pointed out that despite the arrest being based on a purported sale agreement, the police did not take the fundamental step of examining the Notary or the witnesses to the said document. This failure to corroborate the very document used to implicate the applicant was viewed as a major investigative oversight. The Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had already been in custody since mid-April.

"The investigating officer has been very casual in doing the investigation. He has conducted the investigation in a vague manner, neither the Notary, nor the witness to the said agreement has been examined."

Direction For Inquiry Against Police Official

Taking a stern view of the procedural deficiencies, the Court issued a mandatory direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to initiate an inquiry against the Investigating Officer. The Court stated that such a measure is necessary to ensure that such "facts should not be repeated in future" by other officers. The SP has been ordered to conclude the inquiry and submit a report to the Principal Registrar of the High Court within two months.

"The concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to initiate inquiry into the matter against the investigating officer so that the said fact should not be repeated in future by any investigating officer who is dealing with such cases."

Bail Granted Under BNSS And CrPC

While dealing with the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973), the Court held that the applicant deserved to be released. The Court took into account the prolonged nature of the trial and the fact that the applicant had already spent significant time in jail. The bench clarified that the bail is subject to the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the CrPC, and any violation would lead to potential cancellation by the Trial Court.

The High Court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to law enforcement agencies regarding the necessity of thorough and professional investigations, particularly when relying on documentary evidence to link an accused to a crime.

Date of Decision: 29 May 2026