Introduction:

In a significant development, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has highlighted the need for better systems of evidence preservation in police stations across the state. The court expressed concern over the “pathetic condition” in which forensic samples and articles collected during investigations are stored. This observation was made by Justice Subodh Abhyankar during a hearing on October 4, 2024, in response to the destruction of critical forensic evidence—samples that were damaged by rats. The court was addressing the bail plea of Ansar Ahmed, who is facing charges under Sections 304 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Ahmed had previously approached the Supreme Court, but his earlier bail plea was dismissed, as was his Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Background:

The case arose after Ansar Ahmed was arrested and charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, and voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC. His prior three bail applications had already been dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and his SLP was turned down by the Supreme Court. In his fourth attempt to secure bail, Ahmed again approached the High Court, leading to the present hearing.

During the proceedings, the court was informed of an alarming incident in which forensic samples, specifically viscera samples, had been damaged by rats. The samples were crucial for securing a histopathological report in the investigation. The damage occurred because the viscera was stored in plastic containers, which were gnawed through by rats during the rainy season, resulting in the destruction of the evidence.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Ansar Ahmed):

Ansar Ahmed, the petitioner, had applied for bail citing his prolonged detention since January 6, 2023, and the fact that three previous bail applications had been dismissed. His counsel argued that Ahmed’s continued incarceration was unjust, particularly given that crucial forensic evidence had been destroyed.

The petitioner’s legal team focused on the argument that without the forensic evidence, the prosecution’s case was significantly weakened, as there was no histopathological report to rely upon. They contended that this incident of evidence destruction underscored the lack of proper handling by the police and should be considered in Ahmed’s favor, especially since his previous pleas were rejected before this new development came to light.

Further, the petitioner highlighted that there had been no change in the circumstances since his arrest and sought to rely on his right to a speedy trial. The destruction of critical evidence, they argued, should make a strong case for his release on bail. Moreover, his counsel stressed the need for leniency and the fact that Ahmed had already spent a significant amount of time in custody without bail.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):

The State, represented by the police authorities, presented its side by acknowledging the unfortunate incident of rats damaging the forensic samples but maintained that the destruction of evidence could not undermine the seriousness of the charges against Ahmed. The State argued that despite the loss of some forensic evidence, there was still substantial evidence against the accused, which justified the rejection of his fourth bail plea.

The police authorities provided an explanation as to how the rats had damaged the containers holding the samples. They informed the court that the containers were plastic cans, which had been destroyed during the rainy season. As a result, the crucial viscera samples, which were key to producing the histopathological report, were rendered unusable. In addition to the viscera samples, 28 other samples had also been destroyed, thus complicating the investigation process.

The State further argued that the destruction of evidence was a result of negligence on the part of the police officers in charge of the evidence preservation. However, the counsel for the State maintained that this incident, while unfortunate, should not result in bail for Ahmed, as it did not diminish the strength of the remaining evidence nor mitigate the seriousness of the charges. The State also pointed out that Ahmed had a history of bail rejections, and the fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed his SLP was evidence of the gravity of the allegations against him.

The prosecution firmly opposed the bail plea, stating that there was no change in the circumstances since the last bail plea was dismissed. The destruction of evidence, while regrettable, was insufficient to warrant bail. The prosecution urged the court to reject the petition, keeping in mind the seriousness of the offenses for which Ahmed had been charged.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court expressed its deep concern over the condition in which evidence was stored in police stations across Madhya Pradesh. Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized that although nothing could be done about the evidence that had already been destroyed, this incident highlighted the pathetic state of evidence storage systems in the state’s police stations.

The court criticized the negligence of the concerned officers, pointing out that it was their responsibility to ensure the proper storage and preservation of forensic evidence. Justice Abhyankar noted that this failure to safeguard important materials, such as viscera samples, could severely undermine the integrity of criminal investigations. The court remarked, “It is anybody’s guess as to what the situation in the police stations at small places would be, when in the present case, the police station was one of the most busy police stations of Indore city.”

In its order, the High Court directed the Director General of Police to take immediate stock of the situation in all Malkhanas (storerooms for seized evidence) in police stations across the state. Justice Abhyankar suggested that the police implement a digital inventory system with monthly updates to monitor the state of these Malkhanas. He proposed the creation of a web link where all police stations could update the status of their Malkhana and report any issues with evidence storage. This system would help ensure that police officers remain vigilant and take necessary action to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

On the matter of the bail plea, the court concluded that Ahmed’s situation remained unchanged since his previous bail applications had been denied. Justice Abhyankar pointed out that three previous bail applications had already been dismissed, and even the Supreme Court had rejected his SLP. Therefore, there was no change in circumstances that would warrant granting bail in the present application.

The court noted that the destruction of evidence, while regrettable, could not be used as grounds for bail, particularly given the serious nature of the charges against the petitioner. The court therefore dismissed the bail plea but acknowledged that Ahmed had been in custody since January 6, 2023. Justice Abhyankar requested the trial judge to expedite the trial process, taking into account the amount of time Ahmed had already spent in jail.