New Delhi, May 20 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has set aside directions issued by a trial court ordering departmental enquiry and monitoring disciplinary proceedings against police officials over alleged delay in investigation of a POCSO case, holding that the court below had exceeded its jurisdiction after disposing of an anticipatory bail plea.

A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while allowing petitions filed by Inspector Aishvir Singh and former SHO Gyanender Rana, observed that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had become “functus officio” after deciding the anticipatory bail application and could not have continued to summon police officials, seek status reports or supervise disciplinary proceedings thereafter.

“The court, under no circumstances, is to spread its wings far beyond the reach by leaning towards something which is not within its purview while adjudicating an application for grant of bail,” the Delhi High Court said.

The case arose out of an FIR registered at Chhawla police station in June 2019 under Section 363 IPC after a minor girl went missing. Following recovery of the victim and recording of her statements, offences under Sections 328 and 376 IPC, along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, were added.

During the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea moved by one of the co-accused, the ASJ had sought an explanation for the delay in the completion of the investigation and directed previous investigating officers and SHOs to appear personally before the court. Subsequently, the trial court ordered a departmental enquiry against Inspector Aishvir Singh, Inspector Gyanender Rana and other police officials, while also seeking explanations from senior officers, including DCPs and ACPs, for alleged supervisory lapses.

Before the Delhi High Court, senior advocates Dayan Krishnan and Gautam Narayan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the trial court’s actions amounted to judicial overreach and violated principles of natural justice as adverse remarks were passed without granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Delhi Police also supported the petitioners’ stand and submitted that the trial court could not have monitored or directed disciplinary proceedings against police officials after disposal of the bail application.

Agreeing with the submissions, the Delhi High Court held that once the anticipatory bail proceedings stood concluded, “there was nothing surviving/alive and/or pending before him (the ASJ) for whatever reason(s)”.

“Directing departmental enquiry and following up the same along with passing adverse remarks against the incumbents, and that too without issuing any notice(s) upon the petitioner(s) calling for any response from their side(s) was completely unwarranted and impermissible,” the order said.

The Delhi High Court also referred to several Supreme Court rulings cautioning courts against making scathing remarks against investigating officers without necessity or hearing them.

In the order, Justice Banerjee said that criminal courts should avoid “unsavoury criticism” of investigating officers and should keep in mind the practical realities faced by police during investigation.

The Delhi High Court further observed that adverse remarks in judicial orders could have “lasting consequences” on the careers and reputations of public servants.

While appreciating the concern shown by the trial court regarding the delay in the investigation, the Delhi High Court said the “means and manner” adopted by the ASJ were beyond the scope of jurisdiction while dealing with a bail matter.

“In view of the afore-going… the present petitions are allowed and the impugned order… and all the consequential proceedings/directions… are set aside and the adverse remarks, if any, are expunged,” Justice Banerjee ordered.

Taking note of similar instances in the past, the judge also directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all district judges in Delhi for onward communication to trial courts so that they proceed “keeping in mind the purport and meaning of an application for grant of (anticipatory) bail”.

–IANS

pds/vd