High Court pulls up senior cops for acting like court of law

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished an Additional Director-General of Police (ADGP), an SP and an investigating officer of Haryana’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for assuming the role of a court of law while investigating a corruption case.

“It is strange to note that the police officials are apparently acting like a court of law — releasing case property on superdari and deciding the admissibility of evidence, Justice NS Shekhawat asserted, while holding that their conduct not only bordered on contempt but also constituted a criminal offence.

“This court is of the prima facie opinion that the three officials are liable to be prosecuted under the various provisions of the BNS,” the court asserted. Justice Shekhawat also observed that the officials entrusted with the task of probing corruption cases fairly and impartially were deviating from the established legal procedure and projecting their own interpretation of the court.

The Bench said despite being advised to adhere to statutory procedures, the officers disregarded directions. “It is apparent that the three officials have not only mischievously misconceived the mandatory statutory provisions but also interfered with the process of law. Once a case property is taken into possession by the police, the same can never be returned by the police on its own,” it noted.

The remarks came during the hearing of a bail petition filed through counsel Charanjit Singh Bakshi in an FIR registered in 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other provisions, at ACB Karnal. The complaint alleged that government officials had demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 for parole release orders.

Justice Shekhawat was appalled to discover that the original phone containing the recording of the bribe demand was returned to the complainant, despite the recording forming the basis of the allegations. Though the court, over three hearings, drew the attention of the officials to the legal requirement of presenting the best possible evidence before the court, the officers “did not agree”. They, rather, submitted that the same procedure was followed in all ACB cases.

“This conduct may not only lead to acquittal of the accused in several cases under the PC Act but may also cause serious prejudice to the rights of aggrieved/victims of crime of financial fraud/corruption,” the Bench observed, adding such practices were being used by the officials to “check the admissibility” of primary and secondary evidence — a function reserved for the judiciary.

The court also directed the Home Secretary to file an affidavit detailing all corruption cases registered by the ACB in the last two years where electronic or documentary evidence was returned by the IO or SHO on their own in violation of law.

Chandigarh