Delhi Court Orders Police Protection for Doctor Alleging Bribery by Police Officers

New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East) to provide security to a doctor who alleged that police personnel demanded a bribe from him. The court took note of the complainant’s claim that he was receiving repeated phone calls pressuring him to withdraw his complaint.

Allegations of Intimidation and Coercion
Judicial Magistrate First Class Satendra Pal Singh observed that the allegations indicated attempts to intimidate and threaten the complainant in order to force him to withdraw his bribery complaint against police officials. The court stated that if such allegations were found to be true, they would amount to interference with the administration of justice.

Court Emphasises Police Responsibility
The order was passed on January 28 while hearing a complaint filed by Dr. Junaid Akram. The court underlined that ensuring the safety of citizens is primarily the responsibility of the police administration, particularly in cases involving allegations against government officials that could obstruct a fair investigation.

Taking into account the material placed on record—including screenshots and the background of the case—the court held that it was essential to protect the complainant from any form of threat or harassment.

DCP Directed to Provide Immediate Protection
Accordingly, the court instructed the concerned DCP to immediately extend police protection to the complainant. Advocate Devashish Maharshi, appearing for the doctor, informed the court that an application had earlier been filed under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, alleging that police officers posted at Laxmi Nagar police station had demanded a bribe.

Threatening Calls Alleged
The court had earlier, on January 21, directed the DCP to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR). During the hearing, the complainant’s counsel stated that the doctor had received threatening phone calls, asking him to either withdraw the case or submit an undertaking before the DCP (East) withdrawing his complaint. When the complainant refused, the caller allegedly threatened him with consequences.

The court’s order aims to ensure the safety of the complainant and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.