Punjab and Haryana HC orders custodial interrogation of police official for allegedly misappropriating case property

Read Order- Asi/lr Binder Singh v. State Of Punjab

LE Staff

Chandigarh, September 10, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently dismissed a petition which sought anticipatory bail pertaining to an FIR registered under Section 409 of the IPC.

On the basis of a report dated July 27, 2021 regarding missing case property in a case relating to an FIR dated February 29,2016, the present FIR against the police official was registered at Police Station Cantt., Bathinda.

The allegations against the petitioner were that he was In-charge of Malkhana. He got deposited the case property including gold ornaments but later he failed to produce the gold articles in Court as evidence.

The counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the case property was deposited by the petitioner in 2016. He was Malkhana In-charge but for a short period of six months he was transferred to other police station and he also remained on leave on two occasions. It was further stated that  the petitioner was ready to deposit the value of the missing articles with the Trial Court without prejudice to his rights.

On the contrary, the State Counsel  opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that apart from being Malkhana In-charge, the petitioner deposited the case property in Malkhana. He was handed over the case property to be produced before the court but he neither produced the same before the court nor re-deposited it in Malkhana.

It was also submitted that an undertaking was given by the petitioner that he would produce the articles of the case property but he failed to do so. The contention was that the conduct of the petitioner was not above board. He was suspended but he remained absent from duty even fifteen days prior to his suspension.

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that there were serious allegations against an official of a disciplined force. The allegations were of mis-appropriation by a custodian. A deeper probe was required.

The Court opined that it was not a case where question of money was involved and that offer of the petitioner could be accepted that he was ready to deposit the value of the articles alleged to be mis-appropriated.

It was observed that in the present case the allegations were more serious. The case property had been mis-appropriated which might result in affecting the evidence.

While dismissing the Petition, the Bench held that the petitioner being a police official, there is always a chance of his tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. To go to the root of the modus operandi and to recover the missing articles, it is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.