SC Slams UP Police for Omitting Suspect’s Name in FIR

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the Uttar Pradesh Police for registering a molestation case against an “unknown person” despite the suspect having been apprehended at the spot, saying such conduct undermined public trust.

Hearing a plea seeking cancellation of the accused’s anticipatory bail in a case from Bulandshahr district, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva questioned the investigation and directed the station house officer (SHO) to appear at the next hearing.

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

“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 said.

The petitioner, appearing in person, alleged that the police report was biased. She said the FIR initially named an unknown motorcycle rider despite the suspect having been caught at the spot and handed over to the local police.

When the court sought a report, the police merely added the accused’s name without conducting an investigation, she alleged. She also claimed that the police subsequently gave him a clean chit.

The petitioner said the motorcycle had no number plate when seized but was assigned a registration number during the investigation. She further alleged that although she submitted her complaint in the morning, the recorded time was 9 pm.

Questioning counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Police, the bench asked: “Why did you register an FIR against an unknown motorcycle rider if he was caught on the spot? How will people trust the police?”

“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?” it asked.

In its order, the court described the police affidavit as “completely uninspiring” and directed the officer to appear with a fresh affidavit explaining the omission of the suspect’s name.

“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.

The court also sought an explanation for initially leaving the accused’s name blank and subsequently adding it.