The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the conduct of a police officer accused of manipulating a First Information Report to inflate the severity of an offence cannot be overlooked in anticipatory bail proceedings. The judgment underscores that the prima facie case against a public servant, particularly one entrusted with investigative duties, must be the primary consideration - even when custodial interrogation is not immediately deemed necessary.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, ASI Surinderpal, is the Investigating Officer in FIR No. 360 dated 02.11.2025, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar (Rural), under Sections 233 and 256 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case arose from a complaint by one Subeg Singh, who alleged he was assaulted with a baseball bat. However, the petitioner, as Investigating Officer, recorded the weapon as a ‘dattar’ - a sharp-edged weapon - in the FIR, thereby upgrading the offence from a simple assault to one involving a deadly weapon. This alteration was discovered during the hearing of a bail application filed by the accused in the same case, when the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, noticed discrepancies between the complainant’s written statement and the FIR record. The Court also found that the case diary was missing.
Key Facts
- The complainant, Subeg Singh, submitted a written complaint on 02.11.2025 stating he was assaulted with a ‘baseball’ bat.
- The petitioner, ASI Surinderpal, registered FIR No. 360 on 02.11.2025, changing the weapon to ‘dattar’.
- The case diary for FIR No. 360 was not maintained or produced.
- On 14.11.2025, a separate FIR No. 374 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 233 and 256 of BNSS, 2023, for alleged fabrication of official records.
- The petitioner was summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge on multiple occasions to explain the discrepancy but failed to appear.
- The Station House Officer of Gharinda Police Station appeared before the Court and admitted that the case diary was not recorded by the petitioner.
- The Court concluded that the alteration was intentional to enhance the gravity of the offence.
Procedural History
- 02.11.2025: FIR No. 360 registered against accused based on complainant’s statement alleging assault with baseball bat.
- 14.11.2025: FIR No. 374 registered against petitioner (ASI Surinderpal) for alleged manipulation of FIR No. 360.
- 02.02.2026: Status report filed by PPS Yadwinder Singh via affidavit, detailing misconduct.
- 08.04.2026: Petition under Section 482 of BNSS filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner claims the change from ‘baseball’ to ‘dattar’ was a typographical error. He asserts he was on leave during the Court proceedings and could not appear. He offers to cooperate fully with the investigation and argues that no custodial interrogation is required, thus warranting anticipatory bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State contends that the petitioner, as a public servant and Investigating Officer, deliberately altered the nature of the weapon to escalate the offence. His failure to appear before the Court despite summons demonstrates contempt for judicial authority. The State argues that such conduct by a police officer undermines public trust and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to protect himself from arrest in connection with FIR No. 374 dated 14.11.2025.
The Legal Issue
Can anticipatory bail be granted to a police officer accused of deliberately altering an FIR to enhance the severity of an offence, when custodial interrogation is not immediately required, but the prima facie case involves serious misconduct and abuse of official position?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted where custodial interrogation is not necessary. He argued that the discrepancy was inadvertent and that his non-appearance was due to leave. He cited general precedents on bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that absence of custodial need should weigh in his favor.
For the Respondent/State
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. to argue that the prima facie case must be the foremost consideration. It emphasized that the petitioner’s conduct - altering a weapon description to escalate a charge and failing to appear before the Court - constitutes a grave abuse of official position under BNSS, 2023. The State contended that such misconduct by a police officer demands custodial interrogation to ensure a fair and unimpeded investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the Supreme Court’s holding in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., which clarified that the absence of custodial interrogation cannot, by itself, be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized:
"The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct was not a mere clerical error but a deliberate act to misrepresent the facts of the case. The complainant’s original statement clearly mentioned a baseball bat, yet the FIR recorded a ‘dattar’ - a weapon with significantly greater potential for harm. The Court noted that the petitioner, as Investigating Officer, had a duty to record facts accurately and not to manipulate them to increase the severity of charges. His failure to appear before the Court when summoned further demonstrated a disregard for judicial authority.
The Court held that the allegations under Sections 233 and 256 of BNSS, 2023 - pertaining to fabrication of official documents and suppression of evidence - are serious offences that strike at the foundation of public trust in law enforcement. The Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would send a dangerous message to public servants entrusted with investigative powers.
The Verdict
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that the prima facie case against the petitioner is strong, the nature of the offence is grave, and the conduct of the petitioner as a police officer warrants custodial interrogation to ensure a fair investigation. The petitioner is not granted anticipatory bail and may be arrested upon completion of procedural formalities. The Court clarified that its observations are not binding on the trial court and that the merits of the case shall be decided solely on evidence led during trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Servants Are Held to a Higher Standard
- Practitioners must argue that any allegation of document manipulation by a police officer or public servant triggers a higher threshold for bail.
- Courts will not tolerate deliberate distortion of official records, even if the underlying offence appears minor.
- Failure to appear before a court when summoned as an Investigating Officer will be viewed as contemptuous conduct.
Prima Facie Case Trumps Custodial Interrogation Argument
- The absence of custodial interrogation cannot override a strong prima facie case of official misconduct.
- In cases involving BNSS Sections 233 (fabrication) and 256 (suppression of evidence), courts will prioritize institutional integrity over procedural convenience.
- Anticipatory bail applications by officers accused of altering FIRs must now be met with heightened scrutiny.
Investigative Integrity Is Non-Negotiable
- Police officers must maintain absolute fidelity to the facts recorded in complaints.
- Any deviation from the complainant’s version must be documented with justification; unilateral changes without explanation are grounds for criminal liability.
- Defence counsel should avoid relying solely on custodial interrogation arguments when the accused is a public servant accused of official misconduct.
