Case Name: Anurag Dubey v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court said today that the Uttar Pradesh police are “enjoying power” and “need to be sensitized” in response to the way they handled a case. The judge said that the state police appeared to be “entering a dangerous area” and threatened to issue a severe order if the petitioner in front of the court was touched. After hearing the case, a bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the petitioner, who was the subject of several FIRs, appeared to be afraid that if he came in for an investigation, a fresh case would be filed against him.
As a result, the petitioner was ordered to follow any instructions sent to his cell phone by the investigating officer. He will not, however, be placed under police custody without the court’s previous consent. As far as the quashing of the FIR (under Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 of the IPC) was concerned, the Court had already declined to consider the case. However, notice was sent to the State of Uttar Pradesh explaining why anticipatory bail should not be granted, taking into account the nature of the allegations and other cases filed against petitioner Anurag Dubey. In addition, the Court suspended the petitioner’s arrest in the relevant FIR, provided he joined and cooperated with the inquiry.
Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee (for the State of Uttar Pradesh) informed the court today that the petitioner received a notice after the court’s most recent decision, but instead of appearing before the investigating officer, he sent an affidavit. When Justice Kant heard this, he said that the petitioner was likely terrified that the UP police would file another bogus accusation against him.
He must not be there since he is aware that you would file a fake complaint and take him into custody. You can tell your DGP that as soon as Dubey is moved, we will give him a severe order that he will never forget. each time you present him with a fresh FIR! How many cases can the prosecution maintain? The accusation of land-grabbing is fairly simple.He must not be there since he is aware that you would file a fake complaint and take him into custody. You can tell your DGP that as soon as Dubey is moved, we will give him a severe order that he will never forget. each time you present him with a fresh FIR! How many cases can the prosecution maintain? The accusation of land-grabbing is fairly simple.
Justice Kant stated that he has been recognized for a number of years as a court officer when Mukherjee suggested that his brief will return to the state of Uttar Pradesh if the petitioner was touched. The problem, though, is how the cops must be made more aware. The bench also questioned Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Dubey’s attorney, about his absence. The lawyer responded that he had no instructions in that respect, but Dubey had provided the police with his cell phone number so they could let him know where and when to show up.
Mukherjee was questioned by Justice Bhuyan regarding the communication method used to request Dubey’s appearance. Upon learning that a letter had been delivered, the bench remarked that everything is now digital and recommended that a message be sent to Dubey’s mobile phone, which should always be on, providing information regarding his appearance. “Let him join investigation but don’t arrest him,” Justice Kant said, warning that the police officers themselves would not detain Dubey. Additionally, if you honestly believe that an arrest is necessary in a given circumstance, please come and explain these reasons. However, if you take that away from us, the police officers will not only be suspended; they will also lose something else.