The Supreme Court recently ordered that a Station House Officer (SHO) in Indore be removed from all investigative and supervisory duties after finding, prima facie, that he had allowed repeated use of same ‘stock witnesses’ in multiple cases [Anwar Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan directed the competent authority to post the officer Indramani Patel in the police lines till further orders without assigning him any work relating to investigation or supervision of investigations.
The Court also said that the Commissioner of Police, Indore, would be held personally liable if Patel was found to have interfered in any manner with any police action.
Considering the material against Patel, the Court noted that an interim order was necessitated against him. It directed the State to file an affidavit showing that the SHO has been moved to the police lines.
Explaining why it was passing such a drastic order, the Court said the practice of using the same witnesses again and again in different cases destroys the fairness of criminal investigations and goes against the idea of rule of law.
"Respondent No.4 (the SHO) has, prima facie, resorted to/allowed repeated use of the same witnesses in support of the police versions of alleged crimes i.e. ,‘stock witnesses’, a practice which goes to the very root of fairness and impartiality of investigation and could be termed anathema to a country governed by the rule of law, like ours," the Court noted.
The order was passed on January 13 in a bail petition filed by one Anwar Hussain. Opposing Hussain's plea, the State of Madhya Pradesh had earlier filed an affidavit mentioning that eight criminal cases were pending against Hussain.
However, Hussain’s counsel submitted that in four of those cases, he was not even named, in two he had already been acquitted, and only two were actually pending.
Confronted with the same, the State admitted that some of the information it had submitted was wrong. It said the mistake happened because Hussain’s name and his father’s name were similar and the data was computer-generated.
The Court rejected this explanation and granted bail to Hussain, noting that his liberty was at stake. However, the proceedings did not end here.
Since false information had been placed before the Court, it issued notice to two senior police officers - an Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station, and asked them to show cause why action should not be taken against them. By November 25, an intervention application was filed placing more material before the Court about the conduct of the police.
The Court said these issues went to the “basic and core issue” of police conduct and public confidence. It impleaded the SHO, the Additional DCP, and even the Commissioner of Police, Indore, as parties, and directed them to file personal affidavits.
While the case was going on in the Supreme Court, the same SHO’s conduct also came under scrutiny before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In December 2025, the High Court in a habeas corpus case recorded that a man had been illegally detained and handcuffed without any court order. The SHO admitted before the High Court that he had done this without legal sanction. The High Court said this was a gross violation of Article 21 and asked the Commissioner of Police to to inform it about the action proposed to be taken against the officer.
Taking note of the same, the top court said,
"As such, we are fortified in our view that immediate directions, as passed hereinabove, were required. Of course, we clarify that the present Order is interim in nature, and our findings, in praesenti, are tentative."
The case will be heard next on February 3 when the role of the Commissioner of Police, Indore, and the Additional DCP will be examined.
Hussain was represented by advocates Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shweta Chaurasia, Kushagra Sharma, Anuj Agarwal and Akarsh Khare.
The State and the police officers were represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Senior Advocates Siddharth Aggarwal, Siddharth Dave, Gagan Gupta and Sanjay Hegde, along with advocates Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Karan Dhalla, Sidhant Saraswat, Mugdha, Ashutosh Kumar, Tanisha Kaushal, Awanish Kumar, Garima, Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Aman Bhadoriya, Prakriti Rastogi, Gauransh Vyas, Ashish Pandey, Akshit Chauhan, Pushkar Dwivedi, Azad Bainsla and Ankit Tiwari.
[Read Order]