Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by police officials and set aside the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, along with all consequential proceedings and directions passed thereafter. The High Court also expunged adverse remarks, if any, made against the concerned police officials.
The Court held that once the anticipatory bail application had been disposed of, the learned ASJ became functus officio and could not continue to call status reports, summon police officials, direct departmental enquiry, or monitor disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that while concern over delay in investigation may be understandable, the method adopted was beyond the permissible jurisdiction of a court deciding a bail application.
Facts
The FIR was registered on 21.06.2019 under Section 363 IPC after the complainant reported that her minor daughter was missing from her residence. As per the prosecution case, after the victim was recovered and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded, Sections 328 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added.
During the investigation, one of the co-accused moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned ASJ. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of on 22.02.2022, but while doing so, the learned ASJ called for a written report from the previous IO and SHO as to why the investigation had not been completed.
Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 12.04.2022, departmental enquiry was ordered against certain police officials, explanations were called from senior supervisory officers, and the learned ASJ continued to monitor the issue of delay in investigation even after disposal of the anticipatory bail application.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether a court hearing an anticipatory bail application can, after disposing of the bail application, continue proceedings to call status reports, summon police officials, direct departmental enquiry, monitor disciplinary action, or make adverse remarks against police officials.
The connected issue was whether such adverse directions could be passed against police officials without granting them an opportunity of hearing.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the learned ASJ had committed judicial overreach. Once the anticipatory bail application was disposed of, the learned ASJ became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to continue proceedings in the matter.
It was submitted that calling status reports, summoning police officials, directing departmental enquiry and monitoring disciplinary proceedings were beyond the scope of bail jurisdiction. The petitioners also argued that adverse remarks and directions were passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners relied on judgments including State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, Teesta Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka v. State of Assam, and Delhi High Court precedents holding that courts must be cautious before making adverse remarks against persons who are not heard.
State’s Stand
The State supported the petitioners’ submissions. The learned APP submitted that the learned ASJ had exceeded jurisdiction and that adverse remarks without hearing the affected police officials amounted to violation of natural justice.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court held that while deciding a bail application, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to deciding whether bail should be granted or refused. A bail court cannot travel beyond that issue and issue directions or strictures unrelated to the adjudication of the bail application.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. M. Murugesan, where it was held that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail, and broader directions under the guise of improving the criminal justice system cannot be issued in such proceedings.
The High Court also reiterated that adverse remarks against investigating officers or public officials should not be made casually, especially without hearing them. Such remarks can have serious consequences for reputation and career.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on State v. M. Murugesan, where the Supreme Court held that while dealing with bail, the court cannot issue wide-ranging directions beyond its jurisdiction.
The Court also relied on State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, where the Supreme Court cautioned courts against routinely castigating investigating officers and observed that courts should make such deprecatory remarks only when absolutely necessary.
The Court further referred to Ajit Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Nilesh Mishra, where the Delhi High Court had reiterated that trial courts, while considering bail applications, cannot pass directions or strictures beyond the limited question of bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the anticipatory bail application had already been finally disposed of. Once that happened, nothing remained pending before the learned ASJ. Therefore, the learned ASJ became functus officio.
The Court held that continuing to call reports, summon police officials, direct departmental enquiry and follow up disciplinary action after disposal of the bail application was beyond jurisdiction.
The Court observed:
“The Court, under no circumstances, is to spread its wing far beyond the reach by leaning towards something which is not within its purview while adjudicating an application for grant of bail.”
The Court further held that directing departmental enquiry and passing adverse remarks without issuing notice to the affected officials was “completely unwarranted and impermissible.”
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the order dated 22.02.2022 and all consequential proceedings and directions arising from it. The Court also expunged adverse remarks, if any, made against the concerned police officials.
Importantly, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all Principal District & Sessions Judges for circulation to concerned judges, so that courts remain mindful of the limited scope of bail and anticipatory bail proceedings.
Key Takeaway
A court hearing a bail or anticipatory bail application cannot convert that proceeding into a monitoring exercise against police officials. Once bail is granted or rejected and the application is disposed of, the court becomes functus officio. Any departmental enquiry, disciplinary action or adverse remark against police officials must follow due process and cannot be directed casually without hearing the affected persons.