Hearing a bail petition of an accused in a cheating case, who was arrested by the police in a separate case of criminal intimidation, the local court here said that “it appeared to be a case of shoddy investigation and playing with the liberty of a citizen”, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Home Secretary for drawing appropriate action against the Investigation Officer, the Station House Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
A FIR was registered against Sheikh Mohammed Habib, the bail applicant, on August 30 on charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust and later more charges including, criminal conspiracy, were added following the arrest of co-accused Sunil. On Nov 27, Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Kumar Sharma granted interim protection to Habib from arrest till December 8.
He was also directed to join the investigation into the case within seven days.
On December 7, the police called Habib for interrogation in the case and arrested him in the early hours of December 8 in connection with another case registered on December 4 on charges of criminal intimidation based on the complaint of Anshuman Patnaik, the complainant in the earlier case as well.
Counsel’s argument
During the scheduled hearing of the bail application in the first case on December 8, Habib’s counsel Rhea Verma argued that the exercise undertaken by the police was with a view to prove that it would be the police which would have the last laugh.
The court observed that it was “alive to the fact that grant of protection to an individual by a Court of law is confined to only the case in which the protection is so granted”, but the arguments of the applicant’s counsel “cannot be brushed aside outrightly”.
‘Unwarranted acts’
Mr. Sharma said that “it will be failing in its obligations if the unwarranted acts of omission and commission of the police officials/officers in the present case are tolerated meekly and those are not brought to the notice of the senior officers for drawing appropriate action against them.”
In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the court also advised the Police Commissioner to “consider the desirability of getting conducted the further investigation by a senior officer preferably an IPS officer” in the matter.
