'Shocking Casualness', Supreme Court Slams UP Police As Officers, Counsel Clueless About Accused's Criminal Record
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Police for their casual handling of proceedings after it emerged that even the sub-inspector accompanying the accused had no knowledge of his criminal antecedents in a matter arising from a 1982 appeal against an Allahabad High Court judgment.
The Bench also expressed surprise that the State's counsel appeared equally uninformed. When asked to provide details of the respondent's past cases, the counsel conceded that he would need to “take instructions.” Recording its disapproval, the Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh remarked that it was unclear how the State could have filed the appeal without basic information on the respondent's antecedents or the outcome of previous cases. The judges noted that the sub-inspector present in Court was also unable to answer any such queries, reflecting the lack of preparation.
The Court observed that the episode illustrated a deeper problem within the police system, where a casual approach was routinely adopted in court matters. It added that if this was the level of preparedness before the Supreme Court, the situation at the ground level could only be worse. While refraining from further comments at this stage, the Bench indicated that the issue might be examined later.
“We can only indicate the unfortunate situation which prevails at the ground level especially, the Police, where absolutely, casual approach is adopted in Court matters. If this is the level of casualness before this Court, it is not difficult to understand the response and conduct of these Police officers in the administration of justice at the ground level. However, we stop for the moment from commenting more on such conduct and leave it to be considered at a later stage.”, the court remarked.
Background
The case relates to a 1981 encounter in Banda district, in which six men, including the respondent, allegedly opened fire at a police team, killing SI Dharam Singh. One accused died when police set fire to the house he had taken shelter in. In 1982, a trial court convicted the remaining accused under Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Two appeals remained pending before the Allahabad High Court for more than four decades. When the High Court finally heard the matter in 2024, only Bhairo Singh survived. His counsel challenged his identification, pointing to the unusually detailed naming of the accused in the FIR, the absence of a Test Identification Parade, and the lack of clear attribution of roles by witnesses.
After the High Court acquitted the respondent, the State brought the matter to the Supreme Court. It was during these proceedings that the Court questioned the quality of the State's case preparation and the police's inability to furnish even basic information such as the respondent's criminal history.
The matter will be taken up next on 25 February 2026. The Court has directed that records of the lower courts be requisitioned and that the State obtain full instructions on all aspects before the next hearing.
Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS BHAIRO SINGH
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Lubna Naaz, AOR