A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva made the unusually severe oral observations on Wednesday after examining the handling of a case in which a motorcycle rider was allegedly apprehended at the scene and handed to police, yet the first information report identified the rider as “unknown”.
The judges questioned how the public could retain confidence in the police if investigations were conducted in such a manner. “In everything you have an agenda. How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with matters?” the bench observed during the hearing.
The court went on to say it might be better for the CBI to take over investigations handled by the Uttar Pradesh Police if such conduct continued. “We might as well disband the UP Police. This nonsense has to stop at some point,” the bench said.
The remarks were oral observations made during proceedings and did not amount to an order disbanding the police force or transferring all criminal investigations to the CBI.
The court’s immediate concern centred on the discrepancy between the circumstances described by the complainant and the way the FIR was initially recorded. The complainant, who appeared before the court in person, maintained that the motorcycle rider had been caught at the spot and handed over to police officers. The bench asked why, in those circumstances, the FIR had nevertheless been registered against an unidentified rider.
The judges also scrutinised the subsequent course of the investigation. The complainant submitted that the rider’s name was introduced after judicial intervention and that he was later given a clean chit. Questions were also raised during the hearing about the motorcycle’s registration details, including the complainant’s contention that the vehicle did not carry a number plate when it was seized.
The bench expressed particular concern about the possibility that leaving a suspect unnamed despite his alleged apprehension could permit later changes to the identity of the person shown as accused. Its questions focused on the integrity of the investigative process and the effect such practices could have on public confidence.
“Toeing the line is one thing but bending over backwards. And this kind of cover-up job? Less said the better,” the bench remarked while examining the police response.
The court was also dissatisfied with the affidavit placed before it by the Uttar Pradesh Police, describing the response as “completely uninspiring”. It directed the police officer concerned to remain present at the next hearing and provide a better explanation of the circumstances surrounding the registration of the case.
The officer has specifically been asked to explain why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when, according to the material before the court, the rider had been apprehended at the spot. The court noted that the police affidavit itself disclosed the rider’s name as Tushar and sought an explanation for why the name had initially been left blank and was added later.
The proceedings arose from a challenge brought by the complainant after the case moved through the lower courts. Accounts of the hearing indicate that the underlying dispute involved allegations against the rider and questions about the manner in which police recorded and investigated the complaint.
Counsel associated with the Uttar Pradesh side disputed characterisations that the court’s adverse oral remarks should be treated as findings against the state police, maintaining that the bench had heard the petitioner’s allegations and sought a further affidavit. The state authorities will have an opportunity to place their explanation before the court.
