02 May 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Investigation >> Criminal Law  

A Karnataka High Court order directed a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to cooperate with an investigation into allegations of interfering with ongoing probes. The officer had filed three petitions challenging the FIRs against him and seeking anticipatory bail.

Background of the Case:

The DySP was accused of meddling in investigations related to Crime Nos. 91/2020 and 287/2020. He allegedly avoided police questioning and sought to quash the FIRs registered against him (Crime Nos. 19/2024 & 1/2024). He also filed an anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by lower courts.

Court's Observations:

The court noted that the officer's absence was hindering the investigation process.

Court's Decision:

• Quashing Proclamation Order: The court quashed the proclamation order issued against the DySP due to procedural irregularities. This order allowed the police to proceed with the investigation in his absence.
• Conditional Relief on FIRs: The court did not quash the FIRs but directed the officer to join the investigation on a specific date and time. He would undergo a day of custodial interrogation and cooperate fully. Following this, he would be released on bail with sureties. The prosecution was restricted from using any extra-judicial methods during the investigation.
• Anticipatory Bail Withdrawn: The DySP agreed to withdraw his anticipatory bail application in light of the court's directive to cooperate with the investigation.

Right to Challenge Final Report:

The court order clarified that the officer retains the right to challenge the final report filed by the police if it goes against him.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973