An FIR registered against an “unknown” motorcycle rider who had been apprehended on the spot, with his name added only later, has drawn a sharp rebuke from the Supreme Court, which has called the Uttar Pradesh police’s affidavit “utterly uninspiring” and ordered the Circle Officer to appear and explain.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 30, criticised the Uttar Pradesh police for registering an FIR against an unknown person in a harassment case although the complainant had apprehended the suspect on the spot, and directed the Circle Officer, Khurja, Bulandshahr to be present at the next hearing [Veena Rani Saluja v. State of U.P. and Others].
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing the complainant’s special leave petitions, which she argued in person. Justice Kumar questioned how an investigating agency could break the trust of the people.
Background of the case
The complainant alleged that local politicians trespassed into her private property and harassed her and her family members, and that although she informed the police, an FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 452, 323, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Two accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the trial court. She sought cancellation of that bail before the High Court, which refused, and she then approached the Supreme Court. The allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
The affidavit and the discrepancy
The Court had asked the UP police to file an affidavit, which was filed on September 25, 2026 by Shobhit Kumar, Circle Officer, Khurja, Bulandshahr. The Court found the affidavit “utterly uninspiring”. It noted that paragraph 6 of the affidavit names the motorcycle rider as Tushar, son of Prempal, although the FIR, No. 195/2026 registered on August 19, 2026, was against an unknown motorcycle rider, even though it is an admitted fact that he had been apprehended at the spot. The Court said it was unclear why the name was left blank in the FIR and supplemented later, and that this requires to be explained.
Directions
The Court directed that Shobhit Kumar shall be present before it on the next date of hearing to account for the affidavit. It added that it would be open to him to file a better affidavit explaining why the FIR was registered against an unknown motorcycle rider when he was apprehended at the spot, and why his name was initially left blank and later supplemented. The Court has not yet decided the challenge to the refusal to cancel bail.
Case Title: Veena Rani Saluja v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 7980-7981 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 30, 2026
Appearance: Petitioner in person; Senior Advocate Sanjay Nuli, Dr. Sandeep Singh, Prashant Malik and others, and Additional Advocate General Dr. Vijendra Singh, among others, for the respondents