Introduction:

In a strongly worded judgment, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reprimanded the police authorities for willfully delaying the arrest of an accused despite clear orders from the High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner in this case, M/S. Praram Infra through its partner Shri Prayank Jain, sought to transfer the investigation of a case from the SHO of Banganga Police Station, Indore, to a more impartial and independent agency like the Crime Branch or CBI. The main contention was that despite the rejection of the accused’s anticipatory bail plea by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Indore police authorities failed to act on the orders and issued a Section 41A CrPC notice to the accused, showing blatant disregard for judicial authority. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, in delivering the judgment, expressed serious concerns about how police authorities were defying court orders and running a “parallel court.” This case highlighted issues of police bias, misconduct, and wilful defiance of judicial authority, which prompted the High Court to take stringent action against the erring police officers and ensure a fair investigation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The counsel for the petitioner, representing M/S. Praram Infra and its partner Shri Prayank Jain, contended that despite the clear rejection of anticipatory bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on February 8, 2024, and the subsequent dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court in July 2024, the police authorities had not taken any action to arrest the accused. This failure to act was seen as a deliberate and biased approach towards the accused, with the police authorities allegedly offering protection to him. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the continuous inaction by the police, despite the clear legal orders from both courts, was an indication of a lack of accountability and fairness in the investigation. They requested the High Court to transfer the investigation to an independent agency like the Crime Branch, CID, or CBI to ensure a fair and unbiased probe into the matter.

The petitioner further emphasized that the police’s failure to execute the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court pointed to a systemic issue of negligence, or worse, possible corruption or political influence. The issuance of a Section 41A CrPC notice, after the rejection of anticipatory bail, was seen as an attempt to delay and obstruct the course of justice. The counsel argued that the failure to arrest the accused and initiate custodial interrogation, as ordered by both courts, was a clear case of police defiance of judicial directions, necessitating immediate corrective measures.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The counsel for the accused submitted that the Supreme Court’s order had not entirely rejected the accused’s request for anticipatory bail. Instead, the Court had granted him liberty to settle his dues with HDFC Bank and procure the original sale deed, after which the accused was permitted to approach the concerned court for a fresh anticipatory bail plea. The respondent’s counsel argued that this conditional liberty meant that the accused’s arrest was not immediately necessary, and hence the police did not need to act on the rejection of the anticipatory bail plea. Furthermore, it was submitted that the accused had already filed a new anticipatory bail plea before the relevant court after settling the dues, and therefore, his arrest was not warranted at that time.

The respondent’s counsel highlighted that the Supreme Court had not given a blanket rejection of the accused’s anticipatory bail application but had provided the accused an opportunity to resolve outstanding financial issues. Therefore, they argued that the issuance of a Section 41A CrPC notice was in line with the law and not an act of defiance of judicial orders. The counsel also emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and that the police were acting according to the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case.

Court’s Judgment:

In its judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, observed with grave concern the wilful defiance shown by the Indore police in failing to arrest the accused despite clear orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court noted that the anticipatory bail plea of the accused had been rejected by the High Court in February 2024, and the Special Leave to Appeal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in July 2024. Despite this, the police had failed to take any action to arrest the accused, thereby not following the court’s orders. Instead of arresting the accused and executing the directions for custodial interrogation, the police issued a Section 41A CrPC notice, which the Court found to be an act of wilful defiance of the judicial directives.

Justice Abhyankar stated that the police’s failure to act promptly and their decision to wait for the Supreme Court’s order showed a clear attempt to delay the legal proceedings. The Court expressed concern that the police appeared to be operating their own “parallel court,” undermining the authority of both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court further noted that the Section 41A notice issued after the rejection of the anticipatory bail plea was in clear violation of the Court’s orders, which had explicitly stated that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Given the gravity of the situation, the High Court directed the Indore Police Commissioner to transfer the investigation to an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) or higher. The Court also ordered the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the officers responsible for issuing the Section 41A notice, noting that their actions amounted to major misconduct and defiance of court orders. The Court made it clear that this was a serious matter of police insubordination that could not be tolerated.

However, the Court clarified that it was not passing any judgment on the merits of the case itself or the pending anticipatory bail application that the accused had filed after settling his financial dues. The Court emphasized that the accused’s fresh anticipatory bail application should be decided by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by the High Court’s order in this matter.