The Supreme Court expressed shock at the approach taken by the Bihar Police, noting that the Police Officer seemed to believe that the burden of proving innocence rested on the accused to appear before him.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court of India delivered a stern rebuke to the Bihar Police for their handling of a case involving an individual accused of attempted murder. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed their dismay at the police’s expectation for the accused to prove his innocence, a stance that starkly deviates from the foundational principles of justice and due process.
The case in question revolved around Md. Tauhid(Kallu), who found himself entangled in legal proceedings, accused of an attempt to murder. The controversy reached the Supreme Court following a decision by the Patna High Court in October 2023, which denied the accused anticipatory bail, prompting him to seek relief from the apex court.
On December 6, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the appeal and extended interim protection from arrest to the appellant. This move was a precursor to a more detailed examination of the case, particularly the Bihar Police’s rationale for insisting on the accused’s custody.
The Bihar Police, in their counter-affidavit, argued for the necessity of keeping the accused in custody, stating,
“on interrogation pleaded himself innocent but did not produce and material in support of his claim.”
This assertion by the police was met with skepticism by the Supreme Court, which found the approach not only unconventional but deeply troubling.
Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan, in their observation, highlighted the alarming mindset of the police, as reflected in their affidavit:
“It is obvious that the Police need the custody of the appellant-Md. Tauhid @ Kallu (accused), not for interrogation but for some other reason … the approach of the Police reflected from paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, to say the least, is shocking. The Police Officer seems to be under an impression that the accused has to appear before him and prove his innocence,”
-the bench observed.
This critical stance taken by the Supreme Court underscores a fundamental principle of law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The expectation that an accused individual should prove their innocence to the police is a stark deviation from legal norms and principles that govern fair trials and justice.
ALSO READ: In The Supreme Court | Serial killer’s Plea: “Prison For Entire Life Is Unconstitutional”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court made its earlier order granting anticipatory bail to the accused absolute, thereby allowing him relief from arrest. This decision not only served as a corrective measure in this particular case but also as a broader statement on the sanctity of individual rights and the proper conduct of law enforcement agencies.
The Supreme Court’s rebuke of the Bihar Police serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and protecting individual rights against procedural overreach. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal principles and the dangers of deviating from them, especially by those entrusted with enforcing the law. This case is a testament to the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring that justice prevails in accordance with the law.
CASE TITLE:
Md Tauhid vs State of Bihar
READ/DOWNLOAD ORDER:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
