New Delhi, August 20, 2025 — In an unusual turn of events, a Delhi court on Tuesday remanded an Investigating Officer (IO) to judicial custody after he failed to pay the ₹10,000 directed as a condition for cancellation of a non-bailable warrant (NBW). The IO, identified as Sandeep Rawal, had earlier been issued a bailable warrant by the court but failed to appear for proceedings, leading to stricter action.
The matter was heard by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Ramesh Kumar at the Karkardooma Courts, who noted that Rawal’s conduct amounted to disregard for judicial process and wasted the “precious time of the court.”
Background of the Case
The controversy began when IO Rawal failed to appear before the court in connection with a criminal trial, despite being served with a bailable warrant. Observing his absence, the special judge issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) earlier in the day.
Later, Rawal appeared before the court and explained that he had gone to the Saket Court Complex to file a supplementary charge sheet in another case. On that basis, he sought cancellation of the NBW issued against him.
However, Judge Ramesh Kumar was not satisfied with this explanation. While the court agreed to consider cancellation of the NBW, it imposed a condition that Rawal pay ₹10,000 as the cost of the bailable warrant.
Courtroom Drama: IO Leaves for ATM, Returns Without Payment
Initially, IO Rawal expressed his willingness to pay the amount and sought time to withdraw the money from a nearby ATM. The court permitted him to do so.
However, when the matter was called again later in the day, Rawal informed the judge that he was “not ready to pay the amount.” His sudden refusal to comply with the court’s direction left the bench dissatisfied.
Taking note of his inconsistent conduct, the special judge ordered that he be taken into custody.
In the order, the judge remarked:
“Since despite taking time from the court to pay the amount of bailable warrant, applicant/IO has not paid the amount of bailable warrant. He wasted the precious time of the court. Hence, applicant/IO be taken into custody and be sent to JC.”
Understanding Bailable and Non-Bailable Warrants
To better understand the incident, it is important to explain the difference between bailable and non-bailable warrants under criminal procedure law.
- Bailable Warrant (BW): A bailable warrant is a form of process issued by a court when the presence of an accused or witness is required but not considered so critical as to justify arrest without bail. The person against whom a bailable warrant is issued has the right to seek release on bail by furnishing the bond amount or surety.
- Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW): An NBW is a stricter form of warrant. Once issued, the person named can be arrested and cannot claim bail as a matter of right. They must seek bail from the court, which has discretion to grant or deny it.
In Rawal’s case, the judge had initially issued a bailable warrant but escalated the matter to a non-bailable warrant after the IO failed to appear. His subsequent non-payment of the imposed amount for cancellation further aggravated the matter.
Significance of the Court’s Action
The Delhi court’s decision to send an Investigating Officer (IO) — a police official responsible for conducting investigations — to judicial custody (JC) is significant for several reasons:
- Accountability of Law Enforcement Officials: The case underscores that even police officers are not immune from judicial directions. Their failure to comply with warrants or court-imposed conditions can attract the same consequences as ordinary citizens.
- Judicial Time and Discipline: Courts operate under tight schedules with heavy case backlogs. The judge emphasized that the IO had “wasted the precious time of the court,” indicating a strict stance against unnecessary delays.
- Message on Respect for Judicial Process: The order serves as a warning that casual or dismissive behavior by officers of the law will not be tolerated in judicial proceedings.
Broader Legal Context
Indian courts have repeatedly highlighted the importance of cooperation between the judiciary and the police in ensuring timely trials and justice delivery.
In State of UP v. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001), the Supreme Court stressed that police officials must treat court summons and warrants with seriousness, failing which courts are empowered to take coercive measures.
Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), the apex court discussed the circumstances under which warrants can be issued and the responsibility of those summoned to respect them.
By sending IO Rawal to judicial custody, the Delhi court reaffirmed these principles in a practical setting.
Reactions and Implications
While official reactions from Delhi Police are yet to be reported, the incident is likely to generate debate about:
- Professional Responsibility of IOs: Investigating Officers handle multiple cases simultaneously. However, this does not exempt them from ensuring compliance with court orders.
- Internal Disciplinary Action: The Delhi Police hierarchy may examine whether departmental action is warranted against Rawal for failing to maintain professional conduct in court.
- Judicial Assertiveness: The move reflects a broader trend of Indian courts asserting their authority to ensure smooth functioning of trials.
Public Perception and Media Attention
The story has attracted public attention for its unusual nature. Typically, judicial custody orders are passed against accused persons or witnesses, not police officials tasked with upholding the law.
By remanding an IO to custody, the court has highlighted the principle of “equality before law” enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This incident may also spark public discourse on accountability mechanisms within the police force.
Conclusion
The Delhi court’s decision to remand IO Sandeep Rawal to judicial custody after his failure to pay the ₹10,000 warrant amount demonstrates the judiciary’s uncompromising stance on compliance with court orders. By refusing to excuse non-compliance, the court reinforced the idea that even law enforcement officers must adhere to the same standards of accountability as ordinary citizens.
This development serves as a wake-up call for police officials to prioritize court obligations, as judicial time cannot be squandered. It also sends a clear message that the judiciary will not tolerate disregard for its authority, regardless of one’s position or official responsibilities.
The case will likely have implications both within the legal community and in public discourse on judicial-police relations. More importantly, it illustrates a core principle of the rule of law: no one is above the law, not even those entrusted with enforcing it.
Also Read
Supreme Court Raps AIADMK MP CV Shanmugam in “Ungaludan Stalin” Scheme Case; Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs
