“Toeing the line is one thing but bending over is another,” the Supreme Court on Wednesday said while castigating Uttar Pradesh police for registering a molestation case against an “unknown person” despite having arrested the accused on the spot.
Making sharp observations while hearing a plea for the cancellation of anticipatory bail of an accused in a molestation case in Bulandshahr district, the Supreme Court said the Uttar Pradesh Police may be disbanded and all investigations handed over to the CBI.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva said, “Toeing the line is one thing but bending over is another. And this kind of cover-up job? Less said the better.”
Directing the station house officer (SHO) to be present in the courtroom on the next date of hearing, the bench said, “This is how you do the investigation. We have seen lacunae in many cases. In everything, you have an agenda. How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with these matters?
“It is better if we ask the CBI to step in and take over all UP Police investigations. We might as well disband the UP Police. This nonsense has to stop at some point.”
It took note of the petitioner’s in-person submissions that the police report was “biased”. She said the police had initially registered an FIR against an “unknown person” and when the court asked for the report, they just added the name of the accused in it, without carrying out any investigation.
The petitioner claimed that the police registered an FIR against an “unknown” motorcycle rider, despite having caught the suspect on the spot and handed him over to the local police.
She further submitted that the preliminary report by the police was biased from the outset and they later gave the accused a clean chit.
She also pointed out that the motorcycle in question, which originally had no number plate when seized, was mysteriously assigned a registration number during the probe. She alleged that she gave a complaint in the morning but the time shown is 9 pm.
The bench questioned the counsel representing the Uttar Pradesh Police and said, “The FIR was registered against unknown persons? Why did you write unknown if the person was caught at the spot?
“Why did you register an FIR against an unknown motorcycle rider if he was caught on the spot? How will people trust the police?”
It observed that leaving the name of an apprehended suspect blank in the initial FIR and subsequently manipulating case details completely erodes institutional credibility and public trust in law enforcement agencies.
“You catch the accused at the spot but you don’t want to name him in the FIR. Perhaps, if the equation works out, you can substitute the name, bring in one of your own names, you must have kept a list of accused in different FIRs whoever has gotten a lesser number of FIRs you can include his name. Is that how it works there?” the bench asked.
It noted in the order that the affidavit filed by the UP Police was completely uninspiring, and directed it to file a fresh one explaining why the name of the accused was not included in the FIR.
“We find the affidavit filed by UP police to be completely uninspiring. The officer to be present in court in the next hearing with a better affidavit explaining as to why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when it is an admitted fact that the said motorcycle rider was apprehended at the spot,” it said.
It also sought to know the reason for leaving the name of the accused as blank in the FIR initially and thereafter supplementing it with a name.