The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Police (UP Police) over its conduct during a criminal investigation, orally observing that it might as well direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over all probes in the State.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva remarked that it might as well disband the UP Police and direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over all probes in the State.

"In everything you have an agenda. How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with matters? It is better if we ask CBI to step in all UP Police investigations. We might as well disband the UP Police. This nonsense has to stop at some point," the Court said.

The Court made these stinging observations after taking note of serious irregularities in an investigation where the police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against an "unknown" motorcycle rider, despite the complainant having caught the suspect on the spot and handed him over to the local police.

Expressing dismay over how the investigation was steered, the Bench remarked:

"Toeing the line is one thing but bending over backwards. And this kind of cover up job? Less said the better," the Bench remarked.

The matter arose out of a petition filed by a complainant appearing in person. She submitted before the apex court that the preliminary report by the police was biased from the outset.

She stated that following an incident involving a motorcycle, she had physically apprehended the rider and handed him over to the police. However, the police deliberately registered an FIR against "unknown" persons, leaving the accused column blank.

The petitioner further pointed out that when the High Court intervened and sought a status report, the police subsequently inserted the rider's name into the chargesheet, only to later grant him a clean chit. She also pointed out that the motorcycle, which originally had no number plate when seized, was mysteriously assigned a registration number during the probe.

Taking sharp exception to the practice, the Bench questioned counsel representing the Uttar Pradesh Police:

"FIR was registered against unknown persons? Why did you write unknown if the person was caught at the spot? Why did you register FIR against an unknown motorcycle rider if he was caught on the spot? How will people trust the police?"

The Court noted that leaving the name of an apprehended suspect blank in the initial FIR and subsequently manipulating case details completely erodes institutional credibility and public trust in law enforcement agencies.

"You catch the accused at the spot but you don’t want to name him in the FIR. Perhaps if the equation works out you can substitute the name, bring in one of your own names, you must keep a list of accused in different FIRs whoever has gotten lesser number of FIRs you can include his name. Is that how it works there?" the bench asked.

The Court further noted that the reply affidavit filed by the UP Police was completely uninspiring.

Hence, it proceeded to direct the concerned police office to be present in court on the next date of hearing and explain why the name of the accused was not included in the FIR.

"We found the affidavit filed by UP Police to be completely uninspiring. The officer to be present in court in the next hearing with a better affidavit explaining as to why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when it is an admitted fact that the said motor cycle rider was apprehended at the spot. And in para 6 of the affidavit the name of the rider is disclosed as Tushar. The reason as to why the name was left blank in the FIR initially and was thereafter supplemented needs to be explained," the Bench ordered.

[Read Live Coverage]