Police Issue Notice to Presence of Accused After Refusal of Anticipatory Bail, Apparently Conducting a ‘Parallel Court’: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the police officials for deliberately delaying appropriate action against an accused and noted that the section 41A CrPC notice was issued despite the accused’s plea seeking bail being rejected by the high court and his subsequent plea filed by the Supreme Court. He stated that the police were conducting a “parallel court” against him.

While doing so, the court directed the Indore police commissioner to hand over the investigation to an officer not lower than the rank of DCP and also directed that disciplinary action be taken against the erring police officers, observing that their act of willful defiance of court orders amounted to gross misconduct. .

Justice Subodh Abhyankar in the order in which they were observed, “This Court also finds it difficult to understand how a notice under Section 41-A can be issued to the accused and what order can be taken after the bail application of an accused is rejected, especially when this Court has also stated that his custodial interrogation is required. It was also approved by the Supreme Court and “It appears that police officers are running their own courts parallel to both this Court and the Supreme Court, and this is no longer acceptable.”

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the investigation by the Respondent No. 4 (SHO, Police Station Banganga, Indore) for handover to the Crime Branch or any other Independent Investigating Agency such as CID or CBI to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. Investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that even though the bail of the accused was rejected by the high court in February and his Special Leave to Appeal was rejected by the High Court in July, the respondent police officials failed to discharge their duties and take necessary measures. They even try to arrest the accused, which clearly shows their biased approach. Therefore, the lawyer argued that the investigation should be transferred to a private institution.

Counsel for the accused submitted that the High Court has not completely rejected the Special Leave to Appeal of the accused, he has been given the freedom to pay the dues with HDFC Bank and obtain the original sale deed and this leave will be open to the accused. The defendant will make a new application for bail. It was alleged that the accused had applied for anticipatory bail before the relevant court after paying the debts of HDFC Bank, hence there was no need for his arrest.

“As a result of the evaluation of the rival claims and examination of the minutes, the defendant’s bail application M.Cr.C.nr.51194/2023 was rejected by this Court on 08.2.2024; whereas Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. Decision No. 4698/2024, which emerged based on the decision in question, was also rejected within the framework of the said freedom with the decision of the Supreme Court dated 08.07.2024.” said the court.

On perusal of the case diary, the court found that notice under Cr.PC Section 41A (notice to appear before police officer) was issued to the accused only after Special Leave to Appeal was rejected by the High Court. “This makes it clear that the police put pressure on the accused in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision and deliberately failed to take action after his bail application was rejected.”The court said.

The court also expressed concern as to how a notice under Section 41-A can be issued to an accused whose bail application has been rejected, especially in a situation where the High Court has also stated that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary and which order has also been made. It was approved by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the court directed the Commissioner of Police of Indore to hand over the investigation of the case to an Officer not lower than the rank of DCP. The court also directed the Commissioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the “errant” police officers who were responsible for issuing notice u/s.41A of Cr.PC to the accused after his bail was rejected by this court and the High Court. The Supreme Court said this amounted to a “gross misconduct” of “deliberate defiance” of orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

“It is clear that the court has not considered the merits of the case, and that the defendant’s application for provisional bail based on the decision of the Supreme Court will be decided by the first instance court, taking into account its merits. “Without being affected by this order.”The court said.

Thus, the demand for writ was eliminated.

Case Title: M/S. Praram Infra Through Its Partner Shri Prayank Jain Against State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 30532 of 2024

Click Here to Read/Download the Order