Back
Supreme Court Summons UP Police Officer for 'Uninspiring' in Discrepancy
The on , pulled up the for filing an "utterly uninspiring" in a case involving a glaring discrepancy in a first information report. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva ordered Circle Officer Shobhit Kumar of Khurja, Bulandshahr, to personally appear on the next hearing to explain why the was initially registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when the suspect was apprehended at the spot.
A Question of Trust
The case stems from a petition filed by Veena Rani Saluja, who appeared in person before the Court. She alleged that despite informing the police about local politicians trespassing into her private property and harassing her family, the —registered under —was lodged against "unknown persons." The trial court granted to the accused, and the refused to cancel that bail, prompting Saluja to approach the Supreme Court.
When the Name Goes Missing
In response to the Court's earlier direction, Circle Officer Shobhit Kumar filed an on . But the bench found it "utterly uninspiring," noting that while paragraph 6 of the disclosed the motorcycle rider's name as "Tushar s/o Sh. Prempal," the original left that space blank. The rider had been apprehended at the scene.
"The reason as to why the name was left blank in the
initially and was, thereafter, supplemented, requires to be explained,"
the Court observed. The bench further questioned how an
could break public trust by filing an incomplete
when the accused was known.
Proceedings Unaffected
The Supreme Court clarified that it is not seized of the matter pending before the , and that those proceedings can continue independently. No response had been filed to the petitioner's by the State or the private respondents; the Court directed them to do so within two weeks.
What Happens Next
The Court granted Circle Officer Kumar an opportunity to file a better explaining the discrepancy. He is required to be present before the bench on the next date of hearing, . The case will be re-listed then for further proceedings, as the apex court continues to scrutinize the conduct of the .
