The Allahabad High Court has reopened scrutiny of a nearly four-decade-old episode in which a then-Superintendent of Police reportedly threatened to “drag” a sitting Sessions Judge to the police station during trial proceedings. The case dates to 1988, involving convictions delivered by the then Sessions Judge in Lalitpur. The judgment from April 30, 1988 contained serious observations against B.K. Bhola, the then SP of Lalitpur, noting that he had the “audacity and dare” to threaten the judge if certain police records were summoned or if he was called as a defence witness.
The bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Sanjiv Kumar, while hearing a criminal appeal challenging the 1988 conviction, flagged the severe nature of the remarks contained in the old verdict and observed that the conduct described could not be ignored merely because of the passage of time. The Court noted that in the original trial, the Sessions Judge had recommended departmental action against the SP, but had refrained from initiating criminal contempt proceedings — a decision described then as “kind.”
In its new order, the High Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh (DGP-UP) to submit a personal affidavit by a specified date, indicating whether B.K. Bhola is alive, whether he remains in service or is receiving pension, and if alive, to provide his complete particulars including residential address and police station. The Court also seeks details of any action taken pursuant to the Sessions Judge’s original recommendation. The Court emphasized that although other officers were named in the 1988 judgment, the primary responsibility lies with SP Bhola, who was singled out for “behaving like a goon and threatening the learned Trial Judge.”
By ordering this revival, the Allahabad High Court has underscored that misconduct towards judges by police officers, even if decades old, warrants accountability. The matter is listed for a further hearing after the DGP’s affidavit is filed, marking a rare instance where a court re-opens a long-dormant instance of interference with judicial functioning.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.