The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Chhattisgarh Police for deliberately adding charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against an accused, in order to defeat the Court’s previous order granting him interim protection from arrest in another case.
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the hasty action taken by the state police was only to ensure that the Apex Court’s interim order of January 2 was nullified.
Calling it the grossest impropriety, the Bench warned that it would initiate action for criminal contempt of court against the concerned police officer.
It further asked the Counsel representing the State of Chhattisgarh, as to why the officer proceeded to arrest the accused under UAPA, despite being aware of the Apex Court orders.
On January 2, the top court of the country had granted protection from arrest to the accused in a first information report (54/2024).
The concerned police officer then moved the Sessions Judge for adding UAPA charges to another FIR (39/2024), in which the accused had already been granted bail prior to January 2.
The Apex Court today noted that after service of notice in the present case, the SDPO of Narayanpur police station applied to the Sessions judge for adding Section 13 of UAPA and Section 8 (5) of Vishesh Jan Surakhsa Adhinayam.
This was done only to defeat the Supreme Court order of January 2, 2025, and arrest the accused, it added.
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 Bench, however, was not persuaded. It observed that the concerned police officer could have moved an application seeking permission to take action in 39/24. Instead, the police took this hasty action to defeat the interim order dated January 2025.
The top court of the country granted bail to the accused in FIR 39/2024 and made absolute the interim protection granted on January 2 in FIR 54/2024.
It further directed the State authorities to produce the accused before the concerned Sessions court within a week, so that he may be enlarged on bail on appropriate conditions, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.