Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court recently addressed allegations of differential treatment in a visa fraud case involving charges under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Radhikkumar Jayantibhai Dhameliya, accused police officials of granting preferential treatment to co-accused while subjecting him to harsher procedures. He sought a directive for legal and departmental action against the concerned police inspector of Anand Nagar Police Station. The case centered on claims of favoritism towards the co-accused, who were released without remand, contrasting with the petitioner’s experience of being remanded before bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the treatment meted out to him by the police was discriminatory. Despite the petitioner and co-accused having allegedly similar roles in a transaction related to visa fraud, the co-accused were released without being remanded. This, the counsel asserted, indicated bias and a failure to uphold equal treatment under the law. The petitioner urged the Court to direct the Police Commissioner to investigate the matter and take appropriate action against the errant officers. The petitioner viewed the actions of the police as a violation of his rights and argued that no special considerations should be afforded to the co-accused.

State’s Arguments:

The State’s counsel defended the actions of the police, stating that the differential treatment was justified based on the circumstances of the co-accused. One co-accused was a cancer patient, while the other was a woman, and as per normal police practice, remand was not sought in their cases. Furthermore, the State contended that the petitioner played a more significant role in the alleged offence, necessitating remand for proper investigation. The State denied the allegations of bias or preferential treatment, asserting that the actions of the police were lawful and appropriate under the given circumstances.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Sandeep Bhatt carefully considered the submissions of both parties and the evidence presented. The Court noted the petitioner’s allegations of special treatment towards the co-accused and the State’s defense citing medical and gender considerations. However, the Court found the explanation provided by the police to be unsatisfactory. The Court observed that the actions of the police raised prima facie concerns about possible differential treatment. Without delving into the merits of the allegations, the Court underscored the importance of an unbiased administration of justice.

Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Zone-7, to investigate the allegations. If the claims of differential treatment were found to be valid, the Court instructed the DCP to hold an inquiry and take necessary action against the responsible officials. The High Court emphasized that such matters must be handled transparently to uphold public confidence in the justice system. With these directives, the Court disposed of the petition while ensuring a thorough inquiry into the allegations.