Brief Facts
- The Appellant was an Inspector of the Police Station where the FIR was registered against the accused therein for offence under sections 376, 506 of I.P.C and sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. The FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be undertaken. However, the DNA examination was not carried out.
- In the meantime, the accused therein filed bail application before the High Court. During the proceedings, the High Court called for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith.
- Taking note of the various discrepancies in the procedure and manner in which the proceedings were carried out the High Court passed certain adverse remarks against the Appellant and the court found him prima facie being guilty of dereliction of duty. Further, it was observed that the appellant is not fit to be assigned any important responsibility in the Police Department and is unfit to hold any responsible post. The judgment also records a ‘direction’ issued to take appropriate action against the appellant for dereliction of duty, insubordination and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the High Court.
- Feeling aggrieved by the said remarks, the Appellant preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether High Courts can issue additional directions while considering bail pleas by virtue of powers under article 226/227?
Held
- Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the High Court. However, it was observed that the High Court’s views will not prejudice the appellant in departmental proceedings, which should be conducted in accordance with the law and give the appellant a full opportunity to submit his case.
- A High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes. The powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of B S Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 413.
- As the lapses are grave, and additionally, but importantly, the factum that the authority viz. the Superintendent of Police, itself realized lapses had crept into the investigation, and decided to initiate proceedings against the appellant (and others), the operative portion of the judgment impugned by the High Court, becomes, merely reiterative, perhaps in more direct terms, of what had been stated before it. As such, purely, in the extant facts and circumstances, the Impugned Judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 22, 24