#Police Misconduct

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that subjecting an accused to public humiliation-such as forced head-shaving, cross-dressing, or parade through crowded markets-violates Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and the presumption of innocence. This precedent strictly prohibits extra-judicial punishment by law enforcement, even before trial, and holds social media circulation of such acts as compounding the violation.

Jharkhand High Court quashed the punishment of a police officer for alleged confessional statement irregularities, ruling that disciplinary action cannot sustain without statutory mandate or evidence linking the officer to misconduct. The judgment reinforces that departmental proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and evidentiary standards.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that call records, without substantive evidence, cannot sustain a criminal conspiracy charge under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against a DSP, emphasizing the need for concrete proof beyond mere communication logs to establish conspiracy.

The Madras High Court has ruled that police are legally obligated to preserve CCTV footage whenever a credible allegation of misconduct is made, regardless of whether an FIR has been registered. This sets a critical precedent for procedural accountability, ensuring evidence is not destroyed before formal proceedings begin-empowering citizens and lawyers to demand transparency from law enforcement at the earliest stage.

Punjab & Haryana HC refuses anticipatory bail to an ASI for allegedly altering an FIR from a 'baseball bat' to a 'dattar' (sharp weapon), emphasizing that deliberate manipulation of official records by a public servant undermines judicial integrity and warrants custodial interrogation. The ruling reinforces accountability for police officers tampering with evidence.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants anticipatory bail after finding deliberate withholding of counter case diary, affirming that procedural misconduct cannot prejudice accused's liberty.