The Allahabad High Court has taken serious cognisance of a superintendent of police (SP) mentioning an Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister in his affidavit regarding an inquiry against the investigation officer of a case of attempt to murder and causing grievous injuries.
The court has been hearing a petition praying for a fair investigation and ensuring the rule of law in the case.
Expressing serious concern, a division bench of Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena, in its order dated April 16, directed the SP of Basti district to file a personal affidavit and explain the unnecessary mention of the deputy chief minister. “He will also clarify how he has mentioned the said fact in his affidavit,” it said.
The bench also pulled up the SP over another reference he had made: anticipatory bail applications filed by several accused people are pending adjudication before a magistrate’s court.
“If the Superintendent of Police of a district does not know that a Magistrate does not have the power to entertain or decide anticipatory bail application, the lesser said the better about his basic knowledge of the law,” the division bench observed in the order.
It directed, “Let the Superintendent of Police, Basti, further explain his position about the issue he was asked to explain earlier, as also matter how he has thought that a Magistrate could entertain and decide an anticipatory bail application.”
Rahul Kumar, counsel for petitioner Ratnesh Kumar, alias Raju Shukla, told The Indian Express the petition is related to seeking a fair investigation into a case lodged in September last year. The complainant alleged that seven of his neighbours had attacked him using a firearm, rods and other weapons, leaving him critically injured. Medical examination reports about grievous injuries were attached as evidence, the counsel added.
Story continues below this ad
He further stated that the victim approached the high court in December last year, and while praying for a fair investigation and ensuring the rule of law, mentioned that the investigating officer had been suspended by the SP after he procured a non-bailable warrant (NBW) from a local court against the absconding accused.
In its order on December 11, another division bench took cognisance of the SP suspending the investigative officer and directed him to file a personal affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he had suspended the officer.
The division bench of Justices Munir and Saxena heard the matter on April 2 and observed that the affidavit filed by the SP was entirely unsatisfactory. The SP stated that the NBW was procured without collecting evidence.
The bench observed that a non-bailable warrant is issued by the court after perusing the case diary and not on the investigating officer’s ipse dixit (unsupported assertion).
Story continues below this ad
The bench had further stated, “The Superintendent of Police, while passing an order of suspension, is prima facie in contempt of court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Basti, who issued the non-bailable warrant on the Investigating Officer’s application in making a remark that the warrant was obtained without collecting evidence.”
The bench in the April 2 order had directed the SP to file a further personal affidavit explaining why he remarked that the investigating officer obtained an NBW without collecting evidence, when the warrant was issued by the court in its wisdom.
“In the event a satisfactory explanation about the ground of suspending the IO not furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Basti, in his affidavit, we would be constrained to consider initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against him,” the division bench then stated.
The bench next heard the matter on April 16 and observed that the Basti SP hardly explained in his affidavit why he frowned upon the investigating officer for securing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused when the warrant was granted by the magistrate after applying judicial mind.
Story continues below this ad
The court further stated, “We had asked the Superintendent of Police to explain what exception could he have, once the Magistrate had, after considering the matter, issued a warrant of arrest. He has not at all explained.”
Rahul Kumar told The Indian Express that the bench took cognisance of the SP mentioning the deputy chief minister in the affidavit. The SP had mentioned that he ordered an inquiry into the allegation that one of the accused made a representation before the deputy chief minister alleging that the investigating officer had ignored material evidence and that there was an audio clip in which he was heard demanding money, the counsel added.
He further said that the SP mentioned in the affidavit that the investigating officer had been suspended because the inquiry report found the allegations true.
The bench, while directing the SP to explain in his personal affidavit about mentioning the deputy CM and also that anticipatory bail applications of the accused were pending before a magistrate court, listed the next hearing in the matter on April 29.
