Hisar court serves warning to SHO for his conduct in court
Matter relates to a criminal case registered on September 14, 2010 at Sadar Police Station, Hisar
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, recorded strong remarks against the conduct of the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) during court proceedings while deciding an anticipatory bail application in Karambir Dhillon versus State of Haryana.
The ASJ Manglesh Kumar Choubey in his order dated March 13 noted, “On March 11, the case was adjourned for hearing on the application. But even today, Dalbir Singh, SHO, Police Station, Azad Nagar, Hisar is present before the court without any reply. There is no reasonable prospect that reply to this application will be filed.”
It further records the SHO’s conduct during the hearing, stating, “During the hearing of this case, he received a call on his mobile phone which was ringing and his entire focus was on the mobile phone and not on the case.”
The court issued a warning, stating, “The SHO concerned is warned to be careful regarding his conduct before a criminal court.”
The matter relates to a criminal case registered on September 14, 2010 at Sadar Police Station, Hisar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984.
The FIR stated that a group of 100–150 persons “armed with lathi/danda/rod have entered into the police post forcibly… The crowd put the police post on fire and caused damage to the table, chair, cooler and other infrastructure of the police station. It added that they were raising slogans demanding reservation for jat community and also set some papers and uniform of policemen on fire”.
While granting relief to the petitioner, the court observed, “When the petitioner was not required to be arrested in the year 2010 or he could not be arrested by the police either due to fear or due to collusion, there is no requirement of his arrest now, when the issue relating to jat reservation has settled by and large.”
Disposing of the application, the court directed, “In view of the fact that the petitioner was not arrested despite invoking the offences triable by the court of Sessions during the process of investigation, the procedure adopted by learned criminal court to declare the petitioner a proclaimed person, absence of notice of criminal proceedings to the petitioner and absence of any contest from the prosecution in the form of reply on this point, there is no good justification to grant liberty to the police to arrest the petitioner so as to initiate the process of trial. However, the accused/petitioner shall surrender before the police and in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/Station House Officer and he shall be produced before the concerned criminal court within 24 hours.”
