Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail for Police Officer in FIR Tampering Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Sandeep Kumar (2024) INSC 179 (6 March 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6 March 2024. Citation: 2024 INSC 179. Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar. Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail to a police officer accused of tampering with an FIR without providing any reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders, especially when dealing with law enforcement officials accused of serious misconduct. The Court was unanimous in its decision, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around Sandeep Kumar, the Officer-in-Charge of Dhanwar Police Station, who was also the Investigating Officer in a case (Dhanwar PS Case No. 276 of 2021) involving Ranjeet Kumar Saw. The allegation against Sandeep Kumar was that he altered the FIR in the said case to change the name of Ranjeet Kumar Saw’s father from Lakhan Saw to Balgovind Saw. This was allegedly done to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, and instead arrest Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw. The initial case was registered based on a complaint by Sanjay Kumar Sharma, representing United Spirits Limited, concerning offences under Sections 420, 475, 201, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih, initially rejected Sandeep Kumar’s anticipatory bail application, noting that CCTV footage showed Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Lakhan Saw, meeting with Sandeep Kumar at the police station before Ranjeet Kumar Saw, son of Balgovind Saw, was arrested. The judge also observed that the alterations in the FIR were clearly visible. Subsequently, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to Sandeep Kumar without providing any reasons. The State of Jharkhand then appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), specifically Sections 419 (Punishment for cheating by personation), 466 (Forgery of record of court or of public register, etc), 221 (Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend), 205 (False personation for the purpose of any act or proceeding in a suit or prosecution), 109 (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), and 120-B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy). Additionally, Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail, is also relevant.

Section 438(2) of the CrPC lays down the conditions that a High Court or Court of Session may impose while granting anticipatory bail. These conditions include the person making himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, not leaving India without the previous permission of the Court, and making himself available for investigation and trial.

Arguments

The State of Jharkhand argued that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail without recording any reasons, especially considering the serious nature of the allegations against a police officer. The State contended that Sandeep Kumar, being the Investigating Officer, had a fiduciary duty to ensure the integrity of the investigation, which he had failed to uphold. The State also highlighted the possibility of Sandeep Kumar tampering with witnesses and evidence, given his position and the nature of the charges against him.

The respondent, Sandeep Kumar, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the offences he was charged with were mostly bailable and did not entail imprisonment for more than seven years. He also argued that he was cooperating with the investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent without recording any reasons, despite the serious allegations of tampering with the FIR against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others [(2002) 3 SCC 598]: The Supreme Court referred to this case to emphasize that the grant of bail, though discretionary, must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. An order of bail without any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
• State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253]: This case was cited to highlight the factors that should be considered while dealing with a bail petition, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]: This case was also cited to reinforce the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the larger interest of the public or the State.
• State of Gujarat vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh [(2003) 8 SCC 50]: This case was referred to reiterate the need to consider the circumstances peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public or the State while granting bail.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Sandeep Kumar. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to record any reasons for granting bail, which is a fundamental requirement for a judicial order. The Court also noted that Sandeep Kumar, as a police officer and Investigating Officer, had a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the investigation, which he had allegedly breached. The Court observed that granting bail to a police officer accused of such misconduct would send a wrong message to society and would be against public interest.

The following authorities were viewed by the Court in the following manner:

• Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others [(2002) 3 SCC 598]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize the need for reasoned orders in bail matters.
• State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight the factors to be considered while dealing with a bail petition.
• Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]*: The Court followed this authority to reinforce the factors to be considered while granting bail.
• State of Gujarat vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh [(2003) 8 SCC 50]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate the need to consider the circumstances peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public or the State while granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order and the serious nature of the allegations against a police officer. The Court emphasized that a police officer, especially one holding a responsible position, is expected to uphold the law and not abuse his authority. The Court also considered the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence and witnesses, given his position and the nature of the charges against him. The Court was of the opinion that granting anticipatory bail to such an accused would send a wrong message to society and undermine public confidence in the legal system.

The Court stated, “Despite this legal position being well settled, it is unfortunate that the High Court did not deem it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent.”

Further, the Court observed, “The considerations that would normally weigh with the Court while dealing with a bail petition are the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Court also noted, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must record reasons while granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving serious allegations against public servants.
• ✓ Police officers, particularly those in investigating roles, have a higher responsibility to maintain the integrity of the investigation.
• ✓ Courts must consider the potential for tampering with evidence and witnesses while deciding on bail applications.
• ✓ Granting bail to police officers accused of serious misconduct without proper reasoning can undermine public confidence in the legal system.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the respondent is arrested and applies for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, appropriate to that stage, and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the grant of bail, especially anticipatory bail, is not a matter of course but requires a judicious exercise of discretion. It emphasizes that the High Court’s order must be reasoned, particularly when dealing with law enforcement officers accused of serious misconduct. The judgment also clarifies that the considerations for granting bail to a layperson may not be the same as for a police officer who has allegedly abused his office. This judgment clarifies the position of law and does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Jharkhand vs. Sandeep Kumar highlights the importance of reasoned judicial orders, especially when dealing with allegations of misconduct against public servants. The Court’s cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the police officer underscores the need for a strict approach when law enforcement officials are accused of tampering with investigations. The judgment serves as a reminder that the judiciary must act as a check on potential abuses of power within the system.