A Delhi court made the observation while deciding the bail plea of an accused Faheem in a case of theft, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation that the court has the authority to monitor and supervise the investigation. Additional Session Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal stated, “Even if the investigation is prerogative of the investigation agency, the IO as well as his senior officers including the DCP and above rank police officers should keep in mind that this discretion is not absolute.” He added that the investigation agency cannot act according to their whims and that the courts have ample power to check the investigation agencies’ misuse or abuse of their power.
While making this observation the court also cited a decision by the Supreme Court that said the court had the authority to not only direct the registration of a FIR but also to supervise and monitor the investigation to ensure that it was conducted fairly and impartially.
The court made the observation that as a result, it is anticipated that the energy of senior police officers is better spent on improving the investigation mechanism than on justifying the evidently improper conduct of the investigation officer.
In light of the deputy commissioner of police’s report, which stated that the investigation of the present case was monitored by senior officers as per the observation of the Court. In addition, the merits of this case were examined. It was discovered that no specialized investigation or other agency was required to intervene. As a result, the Investigation Agency remained in charge of the investigation, which was not transferred.
The court stated that because the DCP’s report is evasive and based on incorrect premises, it is restricted from making certain observations. In light of the observation made in the orders, the preceding court had repeatedly directed the timely filing of reports. It observed that the same were not followed, and the court was kept in the dark.
The court further added that the information was not provided to the court even at later dates, demonstrating the callousness of senior police officers in such an important matter.
The court also said that the report above tries to give the impression that the learned predecessor court ordered this case’s investigation to be transferred to another agency. However, neither this court nor the preceding court ever issued such a directive in the matter in any of the orders.
It went on to say that since the issue of government land encroachment has been brought to the attention of the relevant government agencies, there is no need for additional guidance on the subject.
During a hearing on the bail plea filed by a man named Faheem, the court made these observations. At the IP Estate police station, a case was filed against him and another suspect. Sections for theft, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation were filed in the case. The accused’s attorney, Advocate Deepak Sharma, argued that the accused was not informed prior to his arrest.
