'He Appears To Be A Rogue' : Supreme Court Pulls Up MP Police Officer For Using Stock Witnesses, Takes Him Off Work

The Supreme Court today(January 13) orally raised concerns about the practice of using stock witnesses by the Madhya Pradesh police.

It also remarked that the Station House Officer(SHO) in this case appears to be a "rogue" after the Court was informed that the SHO had used two common witnesses in "195 cases" and "215 cases" respectively, and continued to do that even after he was summoned by the Court in the present matter.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan passed a strong order against the SHO Indramani Patel, directing that he may not be assigned any work till further orders of the Court. In case of any breach, the Police Commissioner, Indore, will be fully responsible for that.

"Today, as the proceedings could not be concluded as the matter could not be fully heard, at least we are convinced that against the SHO, Respondent 4, some interim order is required to be passed. It is directed that the concerned authority should post the concerned SHO to the line without assigning him any duty at any thana till further orders of this Court. Further, we make it clear that if there is any attempt by the concerned Respondent No. 4 to intervene in any matter in any police station whatsoever, the Police Commissioner Indore shall be personally responsible to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the State shall file the order by which the present order is dictated in the presence of learned counsel for the State, without waiting for the order to be formally uploaded. The matter be listed on 3 February, top of the list," as averred in the order.

The matter was taken up in the morning to study the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Indore. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj informed the Court that the affidavit flags that the stock witness is an issue, and the police will issue some guidelines against the misuse.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde(who appears for one of the intervenors who also alleged that the SHO fabricated evidence using stock witnesses after he refused to give a bribe) submitted that in 195 cases, the SHO has used the same two witnesses. He added that even when this present matter was pending, the SHO continued to use the same stock witnesses, and even in one of the cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken note of that. Only a showcause notice has been issued against him, Hegde added.

When Justice Amanullah asked if the two witnesses, alleged to be the stock witnesses, were taken from a nearby locality or were they already in custody, Hegde responded that the Commissioner's affidavit uses the word "rahagir". Apparently, it refers to common people who were present at that time.

Justice Amanullah responded that the SHO appears to be a rogue: "He appears to be a rogue. Where is the showcause? We are not passing orders, but this is our tentative observation."

When the matter was taken in the afternoon, Justice Amanullah noticed the witnesses were called from the nearby vicinity because the jurisdiction of this police station is such that it mostly deals with crimes that happen in the shadows of night.

"Do the same witnesses follow you everywhere? Are you what their idol?... Why could you not be frank enough to say that these witnesses were called? Why did you say that chalte fire rahigar? That is the language. Sorry, don't go into that area; we will not permit you..You can't say something this general; we will hold you accountable for that. You can't gather this pattern that whatever is coming to you [you will accept as witness]? Is this your level of your SHO?... You are not even fit to be a constable...You say your job is to monitor? Is that what you do?" Justice Amanullah asked the IO in this case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave(appearing for the SHO) flagged that stock witnesses are indeed an issue, and the Court can abolish this practice. He added that the SHO will take a week's leave, but no direction may be passed for his suspension. However, Justice Amanullah responded that the SHO does not deserve to continue. 

"Where is the State? Today itself, we are passing an order that he be sent to the line and he will not be attached in any way to the [police station]. Personally, the Commissioner of Police will be responsible if he tries to interfere in any working of any police station...No concession. That is a easy way out that you go on leave.," Amanullah said.

He added that this is a "pan-India" problem and something needs to be done about it.

Background

The proceedings arise out of a case in which the Madhya Pradesh Police admitted to submitting an incorrect affidavit attributing eight criminal antecedents to a petitioner accused of storing fortified rice meant for public distribution. When the matter came on November 4, it emerged that in four of the cited cases, including one involving rape, the petitioner was not even an accused. The State sought to explain this as a “computer-generated” mix-up due to the petitioner and his father sharing the same name.

Disturbed by the submission of an erroneous affidavit, the Court had earlier summoned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Officer in Charge) Dishesh Aggarwal and Station House Officer Indramani Patel, directing them to appear on November 25 and file their explanations. In the last hearing, the Court took serious note of allegations of police misconduct in Madhya Pradesh, impleading senior police officers after finding that a false affidavit had been filed before it and that further claims of fabricated evidence had been raised against the same officials.

What has happened so far?

On November 25, when the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Hegde informed the Court that a 24-year-old lawyer, Asad Ali Warsi, had filed an intervention application alleging that the same police officials had fabricated evidence to falsely implicate him in a drunk-driving case after he refused to pay a bribe. The application alleged the use of “stock witnesses” across hundreds of FIRs and claimed that the intervenor had been assaulted, with the incident recorded on his phone. It further alleged that SHO Indramani Patel and another official were shown as witnesses despite not being present.

Taking note of these allegations, Justice Amanullah remarked that citizens now had to approach the Supreme Court to secure their basic rights. Describing the situation as “alarming”, the Court said the allegations of fabricated evidence and false implication directly affected public confidence in policing. The Bench also observed that the ADCP appeared to be shielding the SHO.

After considering the affidavits filed by ADCP Aggarwal and SHO Patel, the Court directed that both officers be impleaded as party respondents. The ADCP submitted that the allegations had been brought to his notice only recently and that he would forward them to his superiors, including the DCP and the Commissioner of Police, Indore. In view of this, the Court also impleaded the Commissioner of Police, Indore, as a respondent.

The newly added respondents have been directed to file their personal affidavits addressing both the larger issue of police conduct and the specific allegations made in the intervention application.

Case Details: ANWAR HUSSAIN v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH|SLP(Crl) No. 14087/2025