 of Patna last year){kind=link}
The Supreme Court has sought response of the Bihar government by December 5 on a petition filed by a police officer, allegating that he was beaten up badly in the chamber of Additional District Judge (ADJ) of Patna last year.
The order was passed by the Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh on Wednesday on a petition filed by policeman Gopal Krishna, challenging the Patna High Court order of August 31, which had accepted the closure report filed by police in the complaint against the District Judge.
As per the petitioner, he was called inside the chamber of ADJ Avinash Kumar on November 18, 2021, wherein the ADJ abused him verbally. When the petitioner objected, he was severely assaulted at the behest of the ADJ.
The police officer said this was done after filing of a complaint by one Usha Devi, wife of one Deepak Raj, alleging that the petitioner, who was the Station House Officer of Ghoghardiha police station, had threatened to falsely implicate Devi, Raj husband and her other family members.
The policeman said he had initially refused to appear before the ADJ, but after receiving multiple calls, he appeared in the chamber of Avinash Kumar, ADJ, at 2 pm.
In his statement, the policeman claimed that as soon as he entered the chamber, ADJ Avinash Kumar abused him and when he protested against such behaviour, the petitioner was severely assaulted at the behest of the ADJ.
He further said that Deepak Raj and other Court officials started beating him. At this point, the petitioner No.2 came into the room and he was also beaten up by ADJ Avinash Kumar.
To save his life, the policeman said he locked himself in the bathroom. Blood was oozing from the petitioner’s body and his uniform was torn, added the statement.
He alleged that an FIR was lodged against the Judge after a considerable delay on June 20, 2022.
The ADJ also lodged an FIR against the petitioner in November, 2021 based on which, the petitioner was arrested. He managed to secure bail only in June, 2022.
The petitioner claimed that when the case came up before the High Court, it observed that the police officers who registered the same, were in contempt of court.
The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the same was registered out of misconception of facts and filed a closure report. The court accepted the report and directed the lower court to close the proceedings.
The petitioner argued before the top court of the country that the FIR was closed by the State Government “under the threat of contempt”.
He alleged that the High Court had incorrectly accepted the closure report and closed the case directing the lower court not to proceed with the said FIR.