A police officer accused of framing an innocent person to shield the actual accused is not entitled to pre-arrest bail since the standard principles of bail do not apply to law-keepers who have abused their office, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“Ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However, the same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the investigating officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the guilty,” the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar said in a judgment.

The apex court passed the judgment while cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to Sandeep Kumar, investigating officer at Dhanwar police station in Jharkhand.

Sandeep is accused of tampering with the FIR to shield Ranjeet Kumar Saw, the actual accused and son of Lakhan Saw, and arresting the innocent Ranjeet Kumar, son of Balgovind Saw, in a case of cheating and copyright violations.

“The respondent is alleged to have failed in (his) fundamental duty as a police officer. This consideration must necessarily weigh in with the nature of the offences and the possible punishment thereof,” Justice Kumar, who authored the judgment, said.

“Presumptions and other considerations applicable to a layperson facing criminal charges may not carry the same weight while dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused his office.”

After the complainant in the original case, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, brought the wrong Ranjeet’s arrest to the notice of the authorities, state police registered a criminal case against Sandeep.

The sessions court refused anticipatory bail to the officer but the high court granted him the relief, prompting the state government to appeal before the apex court.

“In the light of these serious allegations made against no less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the machinery of law enforcement, the high court ought not to have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking,” the Supreme Court said.

“Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he was suspended from service and the chargesheet had already been filed against him, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was sufficiently high.

“That apart, grant of such relief to a police officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal…. It would be against public interest.”

The apex court added that if the officer was arrested and applied for regular bail, it would “be considered on its own merits… uninfluenced by our observations hereinabove”.

Sandeep faces the charges of impersonation, forgery of public document, deliberately not apprehending a person, false personation of a person for prosecution, abetment, criminal conspiracy, and common intention.