Indore gambling case: High Court questions suspension of TI after IAS farmhouse raid; officer alleges pressure to drop senior official’s name from FIR.
Indore: The controversy surrounding the suspension of a police officer in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore has deepened after the High Court raised serious concerns over the action taken against him in connection with a gambling raid at an IAS officer’s farmhouse. The court’s observations have brought the issue of police autonomy and administrative accountability into sharp focus.
The case originates from a late-night operation conducted between March 10 and 11, when local police carried out a raid at a farmhouse reportedly linked to a senior IAS officer. During the operation, around 18 individuals were allegedly caught engaging in gambling activities. The location of the raid—associated with a high-ranking bureaucrat—quickly turned the incident into a high-profile controversy.
Following the raid, Manpur Town Inspector (TI) Lokendra Singh Hihore, along with Sub-Inspector Mithun Osari and Assistant Sub-Inspector Resham Girwal, faced suspension. While the two junior officers were later reinstated, the action against TI Hihore continued, and he was subsequently transferred and attached to Burhanpur. This differential treatment has further raised questions about consistency in disciplinary measures.
During the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took a critical view of the developments. The bench questioned the rationale behind suspending an officer who had acted in the line of duty. It remarked that penalising officers for performing their responsibilities could have a chilling effect on law enforcement, discouraging them from acting impartially in sensitive cases.
The court also pointed out several procedural gaps in the investigation. It asked why the statement of the IAS officer linked to the property had not been recorded and why there were no CCTV cameras installed at the farmhouse. Additionally, the court sought clarification on whether gambling activities had been taking place at the location prior to the raid and why such aspects were not adequately investigated.
In his petition before the court, TI Hihore alleged that he was subjected to pressure from senior officers to exclude the IAS officer’s name from the First Information Report (FIR) and to alter details related to the incident. He claimed that his refusal to comply with these directions led to his immediate suspension. The officer further alleged continued harassment after he approached the judiciary, including his subsequent transfer.
The case has also brought to light concerns over selective action. The petitioner pointed out that a similar gambling case in Simrol on March 15 did not result in comparable action against the officers involved, raising doubts about uniformity in administrative decisions. The High Court has sought an explanation from the state government on this aspect, though no clear response was provided during the proceedings.
Two separate petitions have been filed by the officer—one challenging his suspension and another contesting the charge sheet issued against him. While the court has reserved its verdict on the suspension matter after an extensive hearing, proceedings related to the charge sheet are still underway.
This case has triggered a wider debate on the pressures faced by police personnel when dealing with influential individuals and the need for safeguarding institutional integrity. The High Court’s eventual ruling is expected to set an important precedent regarding procedural fairness and the independence of law enforcement agencies.
