LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can comment on lapses in investigation while hearing a bail application.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Sanjay Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Judgment Date: 11 May 2023
Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 455
Judges: Krishna Murari, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can a High Court, while hearing a bail application, take note of serious lapses in a police investigation and direct action against the responsible officers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning alleged dereliction of duty by a police inspector. This judgment clarifies the extent of a High Court’s powers when it observes significant issues in the investigative process during bail proceedings. The bench comprised Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The case revolves around a First Information Report (FIR) registered on 18 July 2021 at Sleemanabad Police Station, Katni, against one Shiv Kumar Kushwah. The charges included offences under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
A Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Katni, on 25 October 2021. The report was then forwarded to the appellant, Inspector Sanjay Dubey, with instructions to conduct a DNA examination. However, this examination was not carried out. Subsequently, the accused applied for bail before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
During the High Court proceedings, the FSL report was missing from the case diary, prompting the High Court to seek the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Katni, and the in-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. The Superintendent of Police stated that the FSL report had been sent to Inspector Dubey on 27 October 2021, with instructions for a DNA test. Inspector Dubey claimed he was unaware of the report as the Woman Sub-Inspector had not brought it to his notice.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 18 July 2021 | FIR No. 424/2021 registered against Shiv Kumar Kushwah. |
| 25 October 2021 | FSL Report forwarded to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Katni. |
| 27 October 2021 | FSL Report forwarded to Inspector Sanjay Dubey with instructions for DNA examination. |
| 13 September 2022 | Case diary received in the Office of the learned Advocate General, without the FSL Report. |
| 20 September 2022 | Superintendent of Police, Katni, line-attached Inspector Sanjay Dubey. |
| 21 September 2022 | Superintendent of Police, Katni, and in-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur, appeared before the High Court. The High Court passed the Impugned Judgment. |
| 23 November 2022 | Interim stay granted on departmental proceedings against Inspector Sanjay Dubey. |
| 11 May 2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, during the bail proceedings, noted the absence of the FSL report in the case diary. This led to the court summoning the Superintendent of Police, Katni, and the in-charge of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. The High Court observed that the FSL report, despite being sent to Inspector Dubey, was not acted upon. The High Court, in its Impugned Judgment, found Inspector Dubey prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty and stated he was unfit for any responsible position in the police department. The High Court also directed that appropriate action be taken against him for dereliction of duty, insubordination, and causing disruption in court proceedings.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for rape.
- Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Specifies offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Relates to offences of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Deals with offences related to publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
- Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Concerns the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.
- Article 214 of the Constitution of India: Establishes High Courts for each state.
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs and exercise superintendence over subordinate courts.
The High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 are designed to ensure justice and can be used to address situations where the court feels that directions or orders are necessary.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the High Court, while hearing a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should only decide on the issue of bail and not venture into other areas such as departmental inquiries.
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522 and State Represented by Inspector of Police v M Murugesan, (2020) 15 SCC 251, to support the argument that a court cannot enter into other realms while deciding a bail application.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The State argued that the appellant had shown insubordination, incompetence, and dereliction of duty by not acting on the FSL report.
- The State also submitted that a departmental committee had found the appellant and other officials negligent in not providing the FSL report with the case diary.
- The State mentioned that departmental proceedings against the appellant were stayed due to an interim order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court cannot direct action in a bail matter |
|
Appellant |
| Dereliction of Duty |
|
Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:
- Whether the High Court, in a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should confine itself to the issue of bail or can it comment on lapses in investigation.
- Whether the High Court’s direction for departmental proceedings against the appellant was justified.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court should confine itself to the issue of bail | The High Court, being a Constitutional Court, could not ignore grave lapses in the investigation. | The High Court has a wide range of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to ensure justice. |
| Whether the High Court’s direction for departmental proceedings was justified | The Supreme Court did not interfere with the direction, but clarified that the High Court’s observations should not prejudice the departmental proceedings. | The Superintendent of Police had already initiated an inquiry against the appellant, making the High Court’s direction reiterative. |
Authorities
Cases Cited by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The court held that the facts of the present case were different, and the ruling was not applicable. |
| State Represented by Inspector of Police v M Murugesan, (2020) 15 SCC 251 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The court held that in M Murugesan, the bail application was finally decided, unlike the present case. |
| B S Hari Commandant v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize the wide powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
| A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 SCR 573 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To highlight the High Court’s power to issue prerogative writs. |
| U P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To highlight the High Court’s power to issue prerogative writs. |
| E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To highlight the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. |
| Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems. |
| M/s Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems. |
| BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems. |
| Chintels India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems. |
| Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To highlight the importance of the investigative component in criminal cases. |
| Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To highlight the importance of the investigative component in criminal cases. |
| State of Gujarat v Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize the need for a procedural mechanism to examine orders of acquittal and record reasons for failure of prosecution. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court should only decide on bail and not venture into other areas. | The Supreme Court acknowledged the point but held that the High Court, being a constitutional court, could not ignore grave lapses in the investigation. |
| The appellant had shown insubordination, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. | The Supreme Court noted the High Court’s concern but clarified that its observations should not prejudice the departmental proceedings. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court distinguished Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 522 and State Represented by Inspector of Police v M Murugesan, (2020) 15 SCC 251, stating that the facts of those cases were different from the present case.
- The Court relied on B S Hari Commandant v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413, to emphasize the wide powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The Court also relied on A V Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 SCR 573 and U P State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 to highlight the High Court’s power to issue prerogative writs.
- The court relied on E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 to highlight the extraordinary powers vested under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
- The Court relied on Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 353, M/s Amar Nath Om Prakash v State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 345, BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Chintels India Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602 to emphasize that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems.
- The Court relied on Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 to highlight the importance of the investigative component in criminal cases.
- The Court relied on State of Gujarat v Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, to emphasize the need for a procedural mechanism to examine orders of acquittal and record reasons for failure of prosecution.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by the following factors:
- The High Court, as a Constitutional Court, has a duty to ensure justice and cannot ignore serious lapses in investigations.
- The High Court’s concern about potential miscarriage of justice due to the lapses in the investigation was valid.
- The Superintendent of Police, Katni, had already initiated action against the appellant, making the High Court’s direction reiterative.
- The importance of a proper investigation in criminal cases to ensure justice.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court’s duty to ensure justice | 30% |
| Concern about miscarriage of justice | 30% |
| Superintendent of Police’s action | 20% |
| Importance of proper investigation | 20% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal powers of the High Court (60%), but also considered the factual lapses in the investigation (40%).
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in taking note of the lapses in the investigation. The court observed that the High Court, being a Constitutional Court, could not have ignored the serious lapses that were brought to its attention during the bail proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that while generally, a court should confine itself to the issue of bail, the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allow it to take cognizance of such issues to ensure justice.
The Court stated that the High Court’s direction for departmental proceedings was essentially a reiteration of the action already initiated by the Superintendent of Police, Katni. The Court clarified that the High Court’s observations should not prejudice the departmental proceedings, and the appellant would have the opportunity to raise all available grounds in those proceedings.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“Let DNA report be now produced within a period of three weeks by the concerned Officer for which Superintendent of Police, Katni shall personally monitor that sample is sent in time to the concerned DNA Testing Laboratory and report is obtained besides taking appropriate action against the concerned T.I. Shri Sanjay Dubey for dereliction of duty, insubordination and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the High Court.”
The Court also emphasized the importance of proper investigation in criminal cases, referring to its earlier judgments in Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353.
The Court also referred to State of Gujarat v Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, highlighting the need for a procedural mechanism to examine orders of acquittal and record reasons for failure of prosecution, drawing an analogy to the need for proper investigation in criminal cases.
The Court stated:
“Every acquittal should be understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully prosecuted.”
The Court clarified that its observations should not prejudice the appellant in the departmental proceedings, and the appellant would have the opportunity to raise all available grounds in those proceedings. The Court also made it clear that its observations would not prejudice the accused in the criminal case.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts, as Constitutional Courts, have a wide range of powers to ensure justice, including the power to take cognizance of lapses in investigations, even during bail proceedings.
- While generally, a court should confine itself to the issue of bail, the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allow it to address issues that may affect the justice delivery system.
- Police officers can be held accountable for dereliction of duty, and their actions can be scrutinized by the High Court.
- The importance of a proper investigation in criminal cases cannot be overstated, and lapses in investigation can have serious consequences for the justice delivery system.
- Departmental proceedings against police officers should be conducted fairly and in accordance with law, with full opportunity to the officer to present their case.
Directions
The Supreme Court vacated the interim order dated 23.11.2022, but clarified that the High Court’s observations should not prejudice the appellant in the departmental proceedings. The Court also stated that its observations should not prejudice the accused in the criminal case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts, as Constitutional Courts, have the power to take cognizance of lapses in investigation during bail proceedings to ensure the proper administration of justice. While the court reiterated that ordinarily, a court should confine itself to the issue of bail, it clarified that the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allow it to address issues that may affect the justice delivery system. This judgment clarifies the extent of the High Court’s powers and responsibilities in ensuring justice, even during bail proceedings. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but rather clarifies the scope of the High Court’s powers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s concern regarding the dereliction of duty by the police inspector. The Court emphasized that High Courts, as Constitutional Courts, have the power to address lapses in investigations, even during bail proceedings, to ensure justice. The judgment underscores the importance of proper investigations and accountability of police officers in the criminal justice system.