UP Police Enjoying Power, Needs To Be Sensitised : Supreme Court

Expressing strong disapproval of the Uttar Pradesh police's dealing of a case, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court remarked today that the police in UP is "enjoying power" and "needs to be sensitized". The judge further commented that the state police seemed to be "entering a dangerous area" and warned that a drastic order would be passed if the petitioner before the Court is touched.

A bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and noted that the petitioner, against whom multiple FIRs were registered, was seemingly under the fear that a new case would be registered against him if he appeared for investigation.

As such, it was directed that the petitioner abide by any notice served by the Investigating Officer on his mobile phone. However, he will not be taken into police custody, without prior permission from the court.

Earlier, the Court refused to entertain the petition insofar as quashing of the FIR (under Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC) was concerned. However, considering other cases registered against petitioner-Anurag Dubey and the nature of allegations, notice was issued to the State of UP as to why anticipatory bail not be granted. The Court further stayed the arrest of the petitioner in the subject FIR, subject to his joining and cooperating with the investigation.

Today, Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee (for State of UP) apprised that following the Court's last order, the petitioner was sent a notice but he did not appear before the Investigating Officer and rather sent an affidavit. Hearing this, Justice Kant remarked that the petitioner was probably living under a fear that UP police would slap another false case against him.

"He must not be appearing because he knows that you will register another false case and arrest him there. You can convey your DGP the moment he (Dubey) is touched, we will pass such a drastic order he will remember his whole life. Every time you come with a new FIR against him! How many cases prosecution can uphold? It's very easy to allege land-grabbing. Someone who purchased by a registered sale deed, you say land grabber! Is it a civil dispute or criminal dispute? We are only pointing out what dangerous area your police is entering and they are enjoying it! Who would like to miss the power? Now you are assuming the power of the police, now you are assuming the power of the civil court! And therefore you are enjoying."

When Mukherjee submitted that his brief would go back to the state of UP if the petitioner was touched, Justice Kant said that he, as officer of the court, is known for several years. However, the issue is how the police needs to be sensitized.

The bench also probed Dubey's counsel, Mr Abhishek Chaudhary, as to why he was not appearing. The counsel replied that he did not have instructions in that regard, however, Dubey has given his mobile number to the police officers, so they can inform him when and where to appear.

At this point, Justice Bhuyan queried Mukherjee about the mode of communication by which Dubey was asked to appear. When it was informed that a letter was sent, the bench commented that these days everything is digitized and suggested that a message be sent on Dubey's mobile (which shall remain on at all times), giving details about where he shall appear.

Warning that the police officers themselves shall not arrest Dubey, Justice Kant stated,

"Let him join investigation but don't arrest him. And if you bonafide think that in a particular case, arrest is required, then come and tell us that these are the reasons. But if the police officers are doing, you take it from us, we will not only suspend them, they will lose something more."

Case Title: ANURAG DUBEY ALIAS DABBAN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, Diary No. - 46437/2024