In a stern message to law enforcement, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has ordered immediate disciplinary action and suspension of a police officer for illegally protecting an accused even after courts had refused anticipatory bail. The court held that the officer’s conduct seriously undermined the justice system and showed clear disregard for judicial authority.
The order was passed by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke while hearing a writ petition filed by the prosecutrix seeking transfer of investigation in a criminal case registered in Guna district.
Read also:- Adopted Child’s Caste Same as Adoptive Parents, Biological Origin Irrelevant: Bombay High Court
Background of the Case
The petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that the police deliberately weakened the investigation in Crime No. 558/2025 registered at Kotwali Police Station, Guna. The case involved offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act.
Earlier, the accused had sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected first by the trial court and later by the High Court. Despite this, the investigating officer issued a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, effectively protecting the accused from arrest.
The petitioner alleged that this move amounted to giving “backdoor bail” and was done in collusion with the accused.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Lapse Claim in 1960s Land Acquisition, Says Compensation Was Properly Deposited
What the State Argued
The State claimed that the police officer had acted in line with Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which caution against unnecessary arrests in offences punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment.
It was also argued that:
- A charge-sheet had already been filed,
- The accused was later remanded to custody,
- Regular bail was granted by the Sessions Court thereafter.
Based on this, the State contended that the petition had become infructuous.
Court’s Observations
The High Court strongly disagreed with the State’s defence.
Calling the officer’s conduct “alarming,” the court observed:
“The investigating agency deliberately refrained from arresting the accused and instead issued a notice under Section 41A, thereby frustrating the effect of judicial orders.”
Justice Phadke noted that once anticipatory bail had been rejected by two courts, the police had no authority to bypass those orders under the garb of procedural compliance.
The court further remarked:
“An act which is illegal at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent events.”
It held that the officer’s actions raised serious concerns of favoritism and misuse of authority, which could erode public trust in the criminal justice system.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores ₹27 Crore Damages in Solar Power Delay Case, Limits Courts’ Power to Rework Awards
Court’s Decision
Taking a strict view, the High Court passed the following directions:
- Immediate departmental inquiry to be initiated against the concerned police officer.
- Suspension of the officer during the pendency of the inquiry.
- Appointment of an Inquiry Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
- The inquiry must be completed in a time-bound manner.
- A status report must be submitted to the High Court within four weeks.
With these directions, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Prosecutrix v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 50649 of 2025
Decision Date: 30 January 2026
