Court mandates investigation into contradictory affidavits in a case involving forest range officers; FIR requires prior sanction under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has temporarily halted any coercive action against forest range officers implicated in an FIR filed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and other acts. The case has raised critical questions about the procedural requirements for lodging FIRs against public servants, specifically highlighting the necessity of prior sanction when the alleged acts pertain to official duties.
The bench, comprising Justices Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad, reviewed the case involving petitioners Abdul Salam and others, who are forest range officers accused of misconduct during an official operation. The FIR, registered at the Sujaoli Police Station in Bahraich, includes grave charges such as wrongful restraint, use of criminal force, and under provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the petitioners, Shashank Tilhari, argued that the FIR was based on a fabricated narrative, pointing to discrepancies in the statements provided by the complainant Mukti Narayan. The petitioners were accused of firing upon individuals involved in illegal tree cutting, an event they claim did not occur. The petitioners emphasized their readiness to cooperate with the investigation, while asserting that the lodging of the FIR lacked the necessary sanction under Section 218 of BNSS, 2023, as their actions were in the discharge of official duties.
The High Court recognized the complexity of the case, particularly the contradictory affidavits presented by Mukti Narayan in different legal proceedings. These discrepancies prompted the Court to direct the Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, to conduct a thorough inquiry and submit a report. The Court underscored the importance of a fair and impartial investigation, instructing the Investigating Officer to proceed without bias or undue influence.
In its interim order, the Court stipulated that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioners until further incriminating evidence is found, provided they continue to cooperate with the investigation process. The Court also scheduled the next hearing for mid-March 2026, allowing time for the filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits.
This case underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the enforcement of law with the protection of public servants from unwarranted legal harassment. It also highlights the procedural safeguards embedded in the BNSS, 2023, aimed at ensuring accountability while safeguarding the interests of officials executing their duties.
Bottom Line:
FIR against public servants cannot be lodged without prior sanction under relevant provisions if the alleged act is in discharge of official duties. Contradictory affidavits filed in different proceedings require a fair and impartial investigation to ascertain the truth.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 218 of BNSS, 2023, Sections 191(1), 103(1), 238, 352 BNS, 146, 302, 201, 504 IPC, Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act.
Abdul Salam v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2856026
