‘Toeing the line is one thing, bending over another’: SC castigates UP Police

The Supreme Court on Wednesday castigated the Uttar Pradesh Police for registering a molestation case against an “unknown person” despite the alleged accused having been apprehended at the spot, questioning the credibility of the investigation and warning that it could consider handing over UP Police probes to the CBI.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva made the sharp observations while hearing a plea seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a molestation case in Bulandshahr.

“Toeing the line is one thing but bending over is another. And this kind of cover-up job? Less said the better,” the bench said.

The court took note of the petitioner's submission that the police had initially registered an FIR against an “unknown” motorcycle rider even though the suspect had allegedly been caught at the spot and handed over to the local police.

The petitioner alleged that the police subsequently added the accused's name to the case without carrying out an adequate investigation and later gave him a clean chit.

The bench questioned the UP Police counsel over why the accused was not named in the FIR if he had been apprehended at the scene.

“The FIR was registered against unknown persons? Why did you write unknown if the person was caught at the spot?” the bench asked.

The court said leaving the name of an apprehended suspect blank in the initial FIR and subsequently adding a name could undermine institutional credibility and public confidence in law enforcement.

“You catch the accused at the spot but you don't want to name him in the FIR,” the bench said, questioning the circumstances in which the accused's name was subsequently included.

The petitioner also alleged discrepancies concerning the motorcycle involved in the case. According to her submissions, the vehicle had no number plate when it was seized but was later shown with a registration number during the investigation.

She further alleged that although she submitted her complaint in the morning, the time recorded in the police documents was 9 pm.

The Supreme Court also criticised the affidavit filed by the UP Police, describing it as “completely uninspiring”, and directed the police to submit a fresh affidavit explaining why the accused's name had not been included in the FIR initially.

The court directed the station house officer (SHO) concerned to appear personally at the next hearing with the fresh affidavit.

“We find the affidavit filed by UP police to be completely uninspiring,” the bench said, directing the officer to explain why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when it was admitted that the rider had been apprehended at the spot.

The court also questioned how the public could retain confidence in the police if investigations were conducted in such a manner.

“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,” the bench said.

The court's observations came in the context of the petitioner's allegations that the police report was biased from the outset. The bench has sought an explanation from the police before considering further action in the matter.