A Delhi court has declined to set aside a trial court's order framing charges against four Gujarat Police officers accused of forcibly taking a minor from Delhi to Gujarat in 2008 and using him to secure the surrender of his father.
Judge criticises police conduct
In an order dated August 12, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh said the officers' duty was to search for the absconding accused father and not to remove the child from lawful custody or transport him across states as a means to obtain the father's surrender. The judge's observation characterised the conduct as acting like "colonial overlords" and accused the policemen of having "hanged that minor child as a bait".
"Their duty was to search for the accused who was the father of the minor and not to take the minor child in their custody and act like colonial overlords of the past and hang that minor child as a bait for his father to surrender before them," the order said.
Allegations and prosecution case
According to the case details presented to the court, on May 25, 2008, five to six Gujarat Police officers in civil clothes visited a scrap shop in Delhi where the complainant — the boy's mother — worked and allegedly sought her husband, who was named in a case. The officers are accused of forcibly taking the child from the mother's lawful custody and transporting him to Ahmedabad.
The prosecution relied on the minor's statement recorded before a magistrate, which reportedly stated that the child had been kept in a police lock-up and subjected to torture and physical abuse during the journey and confinement.
Court rejects claim of official protection
The four accused policemen had challenged the trial court order, contending they were performing official duties while attempting to apprehend an absconding accused and that they were therefore entitled to protection under law, which would require prior government sanction before prosecution. The Delhi court rejected this contention, holding that the protection available to public servants for acts connected to official duty did not extend to taking a minor into custody and transporting him interstate for the purpose of pressuring the accused.
- Date of alleged incident: 25 May 2008
- Number of officers involved (alleged): Five to six
- Court order date: 12 August (order rejecting the revision petition)
Legal and accountability implications
The ruling underlines two salient legal points: first, the limits on police powers when minors are involved, and second, the scope of protection available to public servants under the criminal law when they claim action taken as part of official duty. By refusing to accept the defence of sanctioned official duty at this stage, the court has allowed the prosecution to proceed on charges that include kidnapping.
The case also raises procedural and custodial concerns about interstate police action. Moving a minor across state lines without due legal process and the parent's consent can attract serious criminal consequences, and the judge's language signals judicial impatience with coercive tactics by law-enforcement officers.
Timeline
| Year / Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 May 2008 | Alleged removal of minor from a scrap shop in Delhi by Gujarat Police officers in civil clothes |
| 2008–2026 | Legal proceedings and investigation leading to trial court cognisance |
| 12 August (order) | Delhi Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh rejects revision petition by four officers, allows kidnapping-related proceedings to continue |
Local impact and wider resonance
For Gujarat, the case touches on police accountability and inter-state cooperation norms. While the facts date back to 2008, the court's detailed scrutiny and its decision to permit criminal proceedings against officers continue to carry significance for ongoing debates about custodial safety and the limits of police discretion.
Victims' rights groups and legal experts routinely point to such judgments as precedent in ensuring that law-enforcement agencies observe procedural safeguards, especially where children and families are affected. The court's refusal to accept the claim of official protection at this stage keeps the matter open to a full trial where evidence, including the minor's magistrate-recorded statement, is to be examined.
Proceedings will now continue in the trial court where charges are to be framed and evidence tested. The ruling is likely to inform both police manuals on interstate action and legal arguments in cases involving alleged custodial abuse.
— Kiran Patel, AI Gujarat Correspondent
