Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Protection to IPS Officer in Custodial Torture Case
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to Bihar cadre IPS officer Sunil Naik, who is currently serving as Inspector General of Police (IGP). The court directed Naik to appear before the investigating officer on or before March 5 in connection with a high-profile custodial torture case that has drawn significant political attention.
Background of the Case and Allegations
The case originated from a complaint filed by Deputy Speaker K Raghu Ramakrishna Raju, who alleged that he was subjected to severe custodial torture by Crime Investigation Department (CID) police with an intent to kill him. Following this complaint, the Guntur police registered a formal case, setting off a complex legal and investigative process.
Sunil Naik was serving as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the APCID at the time of the alleged incident, having been on deputation to Andhra Pradesh during the previous government administration. The case has taken several legal turns, including a recent attempt by Andhra Pradesh police to arrest Naik, which proved unsuccessful.
Legal Proceedings and Court Arguments
The legal battle intensified when a local court in Patna rejected a transit warrant requested by Andhra Pradesh police. Following this rejection, Sunil Naik approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, leading to Monday's significant hearing.
During the proceedings, senior counsel Parameswar, representing Naik, presented several key arguments:
- The case was politically motivated and lacked substantive evidence against his client
- Naik's name was conspicuously absent from the First Information Report (FIR)
- Senior officials within the department had not been arrested in connection with the case
- Naik's involvement was limited to his official duties of arresting Raju and transferring him from Hyderabad to Mangalagiri
- Witness statements confirmed Naik's presence but did not implicate him in the alleged custodial torture
Opposing counsel Siddharth Luthra, representing the police, presented counter-arguments:
- The Patna magistrate rejected the transit warrant due to procedural lapses in the arrest process
- Naik had previously given an undertaking to the Bihar High Court promising cooperation with the investigation
- This undertaking was not disclosed in Naik's anticipatory bail petition, constituting suppression of fact
- Custodial interrogation was essential to determine who was present during the incident and who specifically tortured Raju
- The Guntur court had previously rejected Naik's anticipatory bail application due to his lack of cooperation with investigators
Court's Decision and Future Proceedings
After considering arguments from both sides, Justice Venkata Jyothirmayee Prathapa made several important observations and rulings. The justice noted that it is not necessary to include all accused names at the FIR stage of an investigation, acknowledging the evolving nature of criminal cases.
The court issued specific directives:
- Sunil Naik must appear before the investigating officer on or before March 5
- He is required to appear before the investigating officer daily until further court orders
- The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 9
This interim protection provides temporary relief to the IPS officer while ensuring the investigation can proceed with his cooperation. The case continues to highlight tensions between law enforcement procedures, political implications, and judicial oversight in sensitive custodial matters.
The March 9 hearing is expected to provide further clarity on the legal standing of both the investigation and Naik's position within it, as the court balances the need for thorough investigation with the protection of individual rights.
