‘Toeing line is one thing but bending over is another’: SC raps UP Police for FIR against ‘unknown’ person

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Uttar Pradesh Police, questioning its probe into a molestation case in Bulandshahr and sharply criticising the registration of an FIR against an “unknown” person even though the accused was caught on the spot and handed over to the police.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva, hearing a plea seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, observed, “Toeing the line is one thing but bending over is another. And this kind of cover-up job? Less said the better…”

'You can't pluck a listed matter off the board’: Supreme Court raps sudden shift of IPS-CAPF contempt pleas

Expressing strong displeasure, the bench orally remarked that the state police might as well be disbanded and all its investigations handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

“It is better if we ask the CBI to step in and take over all UP Police investigations… This nonsense has to stop at some point,” the bench said.

The court directed the station house officer concerned to remain present in the courtroom on the next date of hearing.

The bench further questioned the force’s credibility, asking, “In everything, you have an agenda. How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with these matters?”

The petitioner alleged that despite the suspect being apprehended at the scene, the police lodged the FIR against an “unknown motorcycle rider.”

The bench confronted the state’s counsel on this point, “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 at the spot? How will people trust the police?”

It was also submitted that the police’s preliminary report was biased and that the accused later received a clean chit. The motorcycle seized at the time had no number plate, yet a registration number was mysteriously assigned to it during the investigation.

Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing on challenge to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan’s interim bail

Continuing its grilling, the bench observed, “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?”

After hearing the submissions, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to file a fresh affidavit explaining why the name of the accused was not included in the FIR.