Indore: The controversy surrounding the suspension of a police officer in Indore has intensified, with the High Court raising sharp questions over the action taken against him and the handling of a high-profile gambling case linked to an IAS officer’s farmhouse.
During a hearing on Monday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed concern over procedural lapses and the implications of suspending an officer for taking action while on duty. The court remarked that if officers are penalised for performing their duties, it could discourage impartial policing.
Gambling Bust at IAS Officer’s Farmhouse
The case stems from a late-night raid conducted on March 10–11 at the farmhouse of Vandana Vaidya, Managing Director of MP Finance Corporation and a 2009-batch IAS officer.
Police reportedly caught 18 individuals gambling at the premises, triggering a major controversy due to the involvement of a senior bureaucrat’s property.
Following the incident, Manpur TI Lokendra Singh Hihore, along with SI Mithun Osari and ASI Resham Girwal, were suspended. While the SI and ASI were later reinstated, action against the TI continued, and he was subsequently attached to Burhanpur.
High Court Raises Key Questions
During the hearing, the High Court posed several critical questions regarding the investigation and administrative action:
- Why were the statements of the IAS officer not recorded?
- Why were there no CCTV cameras installed at the farmhouse?
- Was gambling already taking place at the location prior to the raid?
- Why was the TI, who initiated legal action, suspended?
The court further observed that suspending an officer for performing official duties could deter law enforcement personnel from acting without fear or favour.
After nearly two hours of proceedings, the court reserved its decision on the matter.
TI Alleges Pressure, Files Petition
In his petition before the High Court, TI Lokendra Singh Hihore alleged that he faced pressure from higher authorities to exclude the IAS officer’s name from the FIR and to alter the crime scene details.
According to the petition, when he refused to comply, he was suspended on the same day. He further claimed that after approaching the court, he faced continued harassment and was transferred.
Claims of Selective Action Surface
The TI also highlighted alleged inconsistencies in police action, stating that a major gambling operation in Simrol on March 15 did not lead to similar action against the concerned officers.
The court sought a response from the state government on this issue, but no clear explanation was provided during the hearing.
Two Petitions Filed, Hearing Continues
The officer has filed two separate petitions – one challenging his suspension and another contesting the charge sheet filed against him.
While the High Court has reserved its decision on the suspension, the hearing on the charge sheet remains ongoing.
Case Raises Larger Questions on Policing and Accountability
The case has sparked a broader debate on administrative accountability, police autonomy, and the challenges faced by officers in handling cases involving influential individuals.
With the High Court closely examining the matter, the outcome is expected to have significant implications for law enforcement functioning and procedural fairness in similar cases.
