In a stinging rebuke, the Delhi High Court has directed disciplinary action against police officials after uncovering what it described as a deeply troubling attempt to mislead the court in a murder bail matter.
Presiding over the case, Justice Girish Kathpalia found that crucial evidence had been withheld and that a status report submitted by officers from Delhi Police was incomplete and misleading. The Court did not mince words, calling the situation “shocking” and pointing to what it saw as a clear failure by both the investigating officer and the Station House Officer (SHO) to properly assist the prosecution.
At the heart of the controversy was the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness — the wife of the deceased. Her statement, as placed before the High Court, was only partial. It later emerged that during her initial examination before the trial court, the investigating officer had failed to bring a laptop required to play CCTV footage of the alleged incident. As a result, her examination was deferred.
However, when the police submitted a status report to the High Court, they included only that incomplete portion of her testimony. The subsequent continuation of her examination — in which she was shown the CCTV footage and stated she could not identify the accused — was not disclosed to the High Court.
The omission proved critical. During the bail hearing, defence counsel produced the full record of her testimony. The prosecution did not dispute its accuracy. The Court noted that concealing such a significant development amounted to suppression of vital material.
Further weakening the case were discrepancies in forensic evidence. The weapon recovered by police was a .32 bore gun, yet the bullets retrieved from the deceased’s body were of .315 bore — a mismatch that raised serious questions.
The accused, Aman, had been in custody for over four years. Of the four criminal cases previously registered against him, he had been acquitted in two, while another had been settled. Weighing the inconsistencies and the prolonged incarceration, the Court ruled there was no justification to continue denying him liberty.
Bail was granted upon the furnishing of a personal bond of ₹10,000 along with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
In addition, the High Court ordered that a copy of its decision be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned, directing appropriate action against the officers responsible for filing the misleading report and concealing material facts.
What began as a routine bail hearing has now triggered a larger reckoning — one that underscores the judiciary’s insistence on transparency and accountability in criminal investigations.
