The Supreme Court on Friday slammed Chhattisgarh police for foisting terror-related offences under the UAPA solely to “defeat” its interim order passed in January granting protection against arrest to a content writer facing criminal charges in the state.
“This is the grossest impropriety committed by him (police officer). We won’t hesitate to initiate action for criminal contempt of court. He (the sub-divisional police officer) was aware of the orders of this court. Why have you done this? Ask him.” Justice Abhay S. Oka, heading the bench, asked the state’s counsel during a hearing.
The bench, which included Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, warned that it would not hesitate
to initiate contempt proceedings against the officer concerned for overreaching the judicial order.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by Manish Rathore, a content writer with a news agency, challenging an order of Chhattisgarh High Court that refused him anticipatory bail in a murder case.
The high court rejected his plea based on the material collected during the investigation that showed his involvement in the murder and also on the ground that he had a criminal record.
Rathore was granted interim protection by the apex court on January 2, and the bail hearing was listed.
However, the Chhattisgarh police, in a bid to prevent Rathore’s imminent release from jail, sought to add UAPA-related sections against him by moving an application before the sessions judge on January 28.
On Friday, when the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, the bench took umbrage at the state’s decision to include UAPA-related offenses against the accused, saying it was done deliberately to defeat the apex court’s order.
The counsel for the state sought to justify the inclusion of the UAPA charges on the ground that Rathore had earlier jumped bail in other criminal offenses. Justice Oka, however, was not convinced by the argument.
The bench asked why the state did not seek permission from the court if it wanted to include UAPA-related charges since the bench was already seized of the matter and had granted interim protection from arrest.
“We can see the intentions. The officer is aware that this court has protected him (Rathore) from arrest, and that is the reason he hurriedly adds a section of the UAPA. We see the game in this,” the bench said.
It observed: “The action has been taken by the police against the appellant to ensure he is taken into custody. The intention was to nullify the order of this court….”
The bench rejected the argument of the state that the UAPA was added after it came
to light that Rathore had links with Maoists. The court directed that Rathore be released on regular bail as the interim order passed by it on January 2 had been made “absolute”.
It asked the sessions court to release him on bail after imposing necessary conditions to secure his presence during the trial.
“Because it is so apparent that the appellant was arrested only to defeat the January 2 order, the appellant is entitled to get bail in the said case. Appeal allowed. The appellant shall be enlarged on bail,” the bench said.
