Supreme Court slams Chhattisgarh Police for deliberately adding UAPA charge to defeat bail order

The Supreme Court on Friday slammed the Chhattisgarh Police for deliberately adding charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against an accused person in order to defeat the Court's earlier order granting him interim protection from arrest in another case [Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh]..A Bench of Justice AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the act of the police to arrest him citing UAPA was done only to defeat the Court's January 2 interim order on a bail plea moved by the accused. "Obviously, to defeat the interim order dated January 2, 2025, this hasty action has been taken by the police against the appellant to ensure that he is taken into custody and interim order dated January 2 is nullified," the Court observed. When the matter was heard today, Justice Oka also warned of contempt of court action against the concerned police officer."This is grossest impropriety committed by him (police officer). We wont hesitate to initiate action for criminal contempt of court. He was aware of orders of this Court. Why have you done this? Ask him," the Court told the State of Chhattisgarh,The Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused, one Manish Rathore."Considering fact that it is so apparent that appellant was arrested only to defeat January 2 order, appellant is entitled to be bail in said case .. Appeal allowed. The appellant shall be enlarged on bail. January 2, 2025 order made absolute," the Bench directed..This is grossest impropriety committed by the police officer.Supreme Court.On January 2, the top had court granted protection from arrest to the accused in a first information report (54/2024).However, the concerned police office moved the Sessions Judge for adding UAPA charges to another FIR (39/ 2024) which was already registered and in which the accused had already been granted bail prior to January 2."After service of notice in present case, the SDPO of Narayanpur police station applied to sessions judge for adding Section 13 of UAPA and Section 8 (5) of Vishesh Jan Surakhsa Adhinayam," the Court noted.This, the Court said, was done only to defeat the January 2 order and arrest the accused.The State counsel tried to defend the conduct of the police by stating that the accused had jumped bail earlier and that there was material to indicate that he was involved in Naxalite activities. The Court, however, was not persuaded."The concerned police officer was fully aware of the order passed on January 2, in view of which, what was expected was an application by the State seeking permission to take action in 39/24. Obviously, to defeat the interim order dated January 2025, this hasty action has been taken by the police against the appellant to ensure that he is taken into custody and interim order dated January 2 is nullified. We deprecate this conduct," the Court said.Therefore, the Court granted bail to the accused in FIR 39/2024. The interim protection granted on January 2 in FIR 54/2024 was also made absolute.The Court proceeded to order the State authorities to produce the accused before the concerned sessions court within one week, so that he may be enlarged on bail on appropriate conditions, after hearing the Public Prosecutor."The appellant shall be enlarged on bail in 39/24 ... January 2 order is made absolute," the Court directed..[Read Order].[Read Live Coverage]