23 April 2024 Anticipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Corruption >> Criminal Law  

Two police officers in Bengaluru, India, were recently denied anticipatory bail after being accused of misusing their positions during a criminal investigation. The officers, identified in the court document as Chandradhar (petitioner 3) and Shridhar Pujar (petitioner 5), were the investigating officers in separate cases but are now facing charges together.

The prosecution alleges that the officers leveraged their access to evidence for personal gain. Specifically, they are accused of:

• Assisting the accused in the original cases.
• Potentially tampering with evidence related to cryptocurrencies (bitcoins).

The petitioners claim they are innocent and that the allegations are false.

Dueling Explanations for Missing Bitcoins:

A central point of contention revolves around a seized cache of bitcoins. The prosecution alleges the officers took the bitcoins for themselves. The petitioners counter that the bitcoins were never part of the investigation and that a second document clarifying this was misinterpreted.

Private Company Raises Red Flags:

Another key point is the use of a private company for data recovery. The petitioners argue they had no reason to use a private firm since a public cybercrime team exists within the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The prosecution, however, views this as suspicious behavior, suggesting the officers were trying to hide their actions.

Court Cites Officer Status as Reason for Denial:

The court sided with the prosecution, finding enough evidence to suspect the officers' involvement in the crimes. The court decision emphasizes the seriousness of the accusations, particularly given the petitioners' positions as law enforcement officers. The judge cited the potential for witness tampering and evidence destruction as reasons for denying bail.

This decision aligns with a recent Supreme Court ruling that discourages granting bail to law enforcement officers facing serious charges to prevent tampering with investigations.

One Officer a Declared Fugitive:

Adding another layer of complexity, Shridhar Pujar had already been declared a proclaimed offender, meaning he had evaded court appearances. The court pointed out that someone facing such a designation is ineligible for anticipatory bail.

Conclusion:

The court ultimately rejected the anticipatory bail petitions for both Chandradhar and Shridhar Pujar. This means they will remain in custody as the case against them proceeds.

Information Technology Act, 2000    

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985