Something Is Fishy; Police Officers Do Not Want To Bring Correct Facts On Record: Allahabad HC Directs DGP To Ensure Fair Investigation
The Allahabad High Court directed the DGP of U.P. to ensure a fair investigation in a case where the Court suspected something fishy since the police concerned appeared unwilling to bring the correct facts on record.
The Court in its previous order had directed the Police to file a counter affidavit in the matter regarding the grant of an interim anticipatory bail to the applicant who was accused under Section 13(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Police did not comply with the Court’s directions.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed, “This apathetic attitude of the officer concerned indicates that either she has no respect to the order of the Courts or she has nothing to counter the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. Such conduct of the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar is not approved by this Court. It is often seen that senior officials of the state do not comply the orders of the Court within stipulated time, which is not a healthy practice and it amounts to creating hindrance in the administration of justice.”
Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Pandey represented the applicant, while AGA Deepak Mishra appeared for the opposite party.
The Court pointed out that the police officer who had lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant on the basis of a WhatsApp voice call had done so without verifying the genuineness of the call recording and without tracing the original source of the same.
“As such it is admitted fact that neither original source of alleged whatsapp voice call recording nor mobile number and mobile phone, by which the said voice call was alleged to have been recorded are available with the investigating officer,” the Court noted.
The applicant had submitted that in order to save their skin, the police had recorded a false statement to implicate the applicant and had also "started cooking fabricated story in their defence."
Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.
“Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains,” the court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Ankit Baliyan v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:44528)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Awadhesh Kumar Pandey and Kunal Shah
Opposite Party: AGA Deepak Mishra
