Delhi High Court

Anti-Drugs Case: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Issuing Bailable Warrants Against DCP

The Delhi High Court setaside a trial court’s order that had issued bailable warrants against a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) for alleged non-cooperation in promptly obtaining a forensic report related to a case under the anti-drugs law.

Justice Amit Bansal expressed astonishment at the trial court’s decision, noting that despite a prior high court directive discouraging such orders against senior officials and urging judicial officers to exercise restraint, the trial court judge persisted in issuing such directives, thereby violating judicial discipline.

The court emphasized that routinely issuing bailable warrants tarnishes the image and reputation of high-ranking police officials, impacting their service records and subjecting them to stigma.

Referring to a precedent Ajit Kumar v. State, the court underscored the importance of exercising judicial restraint in such matters.

In July, the trial court had directed the personal appearance of the investigating officer, station house officer (SHO), assistant commissioner of police (ACP), and the concerned DCP on August 2.

On that date, the DCP (crime) sought exemption from personal appearance, but the trial court rejected the request and issued bailable warrants worth Rs 5,000 against him, citing the absence of official exigencies in the request letter.

The high court, in its order, deemed the trial court’s directions for the personal presence of officials and the issuance of bailable warrants against the DCP as unjustified and without legal authority.

The order dated August 2, 2023, for the issuance of bailable warrants against the DCP was set aside.

Given the trial court judge’s consistent defiance of the high court’s judgment on this matter, Justice Bansal directed that the present order be forwarded to the Inspection Committee of the high court for the judge’s review.

The high court, while addressing the State’s appeal against the trial court order, emphasized that delays in obtaining Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports should not be construed as negligence on the part of the police authorities.

The court clarified that the FSL operates independently and is not under the control of the Delhi Police, making it beyond their control to expedite reports.

Calling senior police officials to court for such matters, the court asserted, hampers their regular duties. In this case, the trial judge had no grounds to summon the investigating officer, SHO, ACP, and DCP to court, let alone issue bailable warrants against the DCP.

Meera Verma

Recent Posts

Punjab & Haryana HC Notice To Jindal Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday has issued a notice to Jindal Global…

9 hours ago

ED Files Money Laundering Complaint Against Charanjit Singh Bajaj, 4 Others

The ED on Tuesday has filed a Prosecution Complaint before the Special Court in Mohali…

9 hours ago

Pune Porsche Case: SC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Minor Driver’s Friend

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, whose son is a…

11 hours ago

SC Dumps Plea Against Quashing LOC For Sushant Singh Rajput’s Ex-House Help

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the Centre's appeal against a Bombay High Court order…

11 hours ago

Rape Case: SC Issues Notice On Ex-Army Officer’s Plea For Quashing Charge sheet

The Supreme Court on Tuesday has agreed to review a plea from retired Army Captain…

12 hours ago

Chhattisgarh NAN Scam: FIR Against 2 Retired IAS Officers, Former AG

The Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau on Tuesday has registered a case against 2 retired IAS officers…

12 hours ago