The Supreme Court has strongly questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police over the handling of an investigation involving a motorcycle rider, saying it may consider transferring all investigations in the state to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bench also said it could dissolve the UP Police if such conduct continued.

Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva were hearing the matter on Wednesday, September 30. The petitioner alleged that he had caught the accused at the spot and handed him over to the police. Despite that, the first information report (FIR) was registered against an unknown person.

Why the court questioned the FIR

The bench asked the police lawyer why the rider was described as unknown if he had been apprehended at the scene. The judges questioned how the public could trust the police when a person allegedly caught during the incident was not named in the initial FIR.

The petitioner also alleged that the motorcycle had no number plate at first, but was later given a registration number. The court considered these claims while examining whether the investigation and case records had been properly handled.

The petitioner said he had earlier approached the High Court. After the High Court intervened, the accused's name was added to the chargesheet, but he was later given a clean chit.

Bench raises concern over possible manipulation

During the hearing, the judges questioned whether leaving a suspect's name out of the first FIR could allow names to be changed later or another person to be implicated. The bench also questioned whether police maintained lists of accused people across separate FIRs and selected names based on how many cases were already registered against them.

The court said that leaving the name of a person caught at the scene blank in the initial FIR could undermine public confidence in law-enforcement agencies. The bench also described the conduct under examination as “nonsense” that had to stop and criticised what it saw as an agenda in the handling of cases.

The Supreme Court was not satisfied with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Police. The affidavit's paragraph 6 identified the motorcycle rider as Tushar, while the earlier FIR had described the person as unknown.

What happens next

The bench has directed the relevant police officer to remain present at the next hearing. The officer must explain why the accused's name was not included in the FIR at the outset.

Conclusion

The hearing centres on whether the police correctly recorded the identity of a person allegedly caught at the scene. The next hearing will require a direct explanation from the concerned officer, while the court has kept open the possibility of transferring UP investigations to the CBI or dissolving the state police.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What did the Supreme Court question about the UP Police FIR?

The bench questioned why a person allegedly caught at the scene was described as unknown in the FIR.

Q. What did the petitioner allege about the accused?

The petitioner said he had caught the accused and handed him over to the police.

Q. What happened after the High Court intervened?

The petitioner said the accused's name was added to the chargesheet after the High Court's intervention, but the person later received a clean chit.

Q. What did the court say about transferring investigations?

The bench said it could order that all investigations in Uttar Pradesh be handed to the CBI.

Q. What must happen at the next hearing?

The concerned police officer must appear and explain why the accused's name was not included in the FIR.

Q. Who was named in paragraph 6 of the affidavit?

Paragraph 6 of the affidavit identified the motorcycle rider as Tushar.