KOCHI: Slamming the investigating officer for failing to communicate the grounds of arrest to Dr M Kodanda Ram, an accused in the death of Kannur Dental College student Nithin Raj, as mandated by law, the Kerala High Court on Friday orally asked the police whether they had acted with the intention of tarnishing the image of the home department when it was earning public praise for initiatives such as Operation Toofan.
Justice A Badharudeen asked the DySP who arrested Ram: “Do you have any personal grudge against the home department? Was this done with the intention of tarnishing its image at a time when the home department is carrying out good work, including Operation Toofan? Or was it done because some superior officer instructed you to do so? Courts and justice have not disappeared from here.
If the police try to help accused persons escape through unlawful actions, there is a court here to protect the rights and interests of ordinary people.”
The court made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Nithin Raj’s parents, alleging lapses in the investigation against Ram, the former head of the department of Kannur Dental College, and seeking the production of records relating to his arrest and subsequent release.
The court observed that reports submitted by special judge and the ADGP prima facie showed that the investigating officer had failed to furnish the accused with the mandatory written grounds of arrest, leading to his release.
Ram arrest: Mistake committed by DySP is very serious, says court
“The wrong committed by the DySP, who initially recorded the arrest of the accused, is very serious,” it remarked.
Expressing concern over recurring cases of investigating officers failing to communicate the grounds of arrest to accused persons as required by law, thereby enabling them to secure release, the court orally observed that the situation was “very pathetic”.
“I have noticed that many investigating officers, in one way or another, are failing to communicate the grounds of arrest, resulting in the release of accused persons,” the court observed.
The court found that the mandatory guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, requiring investigating officers to provide written grounds of arrest to accused persons, had not been complied with in Ram’s case.
The omission led the special court in Thalassery to order his release. Subsequently, after the special court permitted the special investigation team (SIT) to re-arrest him, Ram surrendered before the Crime Branch.
The DySP and the SP, Crime Branch, appeared before the court and explained the sequence of events that led to the accused’s release.
During the hearing, the DySP submitted that he had made several arrests during his 22 years of service and that none of the accused in his last 10 cases had secured release on the ground that the mandatory grounds of arrest were not furnished. The court replied that this only underscored the gravity of the lapse in the present case, where the omission enabled the accused to secure his release after being produced before the special court.
The court observed that, in the present case, the lapse had effectively aided the accused in securing his release after arrest. It said the investigating officer had committed a grave error, as the accused was released solely because of his failure to comply with a mandatory legal requirement.
Although the DySP assured the court that such lapses would not recur, the court refused to accept the assurance at face value and warned that stringent action would follow.
It further observed that if the government failed to initiate disciplinary proceedings as assured, it would order a comprehensive investigation to identify everyone responsible for the lapse.
The court directed the prosecution to inform it about the action taken against the police officer responsible for the lapse and posted the matter for further hearing on August 10.
The court also heard the superintendent of police, Crime Branch, on the issue and asked” “What supervision have you done to ensure that no fault has occurred in this case?”