The Supreme Court quashed the Anticipatory Bail granted by Jharkhand High Court in favour of an Investigating Officer accused of Interpolations in the FIR so as to shield the actual accused. 

The said IO was investigating an FIR at the relevant time and the allegation against him which led to the registration of the present case against him, was that he had made interpolations in the said FIR, whereby he changed the name of the father of the accused therein, and, thereupon, arrested another person, so as to shield actual Accused named in the FIR.

The Anticipatory Bail petition filed by the IO was rejected by the learned Trial court at the First instance but was subsequently granted by the High Court. Aggrieved of the same the State preferred an Appeal.

The Apex Court observed that it is unfortunate that the High Court did not deem it necessary to record as to what weighed with it while granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent. More so, as the accused, a member of a uniformed service, was holding the responsible position of Officer-in-Charge of a police station apart from being the Investigating Officer in the case, wherein he was alleged to have made a wrongful arrest by making alterations in the FIR.

The court further observed that the Considerations that would normally weigh with the Court while dealing with a bail petition are the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similar considerations would apply even for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the position held by the respondent the court observed that although Ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences, would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However, the same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the guilty. Th respondent is alleged to have failed in this fundamental duty as a police officer.

Accordingly the court held that the High Court had erred in granting Pre-Arrest Bail.