SUPREME COURT REBUKES MADHYA PRADESH POLICE FOR SUBMITTING FALSE AFFIDAVIT ON CRIMINAL RECORDS; ORDERS OFFICERS TO APPEAR

The Supreme Court of India issued a stern rebuke to the Madhya Pradesh Police for filing a false affidavit in opposition to a bail plea, wherein multiple criminal cases were wrongly attributed to an accused who had no involvement in them. The case came before a Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sandeep Mehta, who expressed deep concern over the manner in which misleading information had been presented to the Court in a matter directly affecting the liberty of a citizen. The petitioner, Anwar Hussain, had sought bail, but the State, through its affidavit, claimed that he had eight other criminal antecedents. Upon scrutiny, it was revealed that in at least four of those cases, including one registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was not even named as an accused person.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel brought this serious discrepancy to the Court’s attention, demonstrating that the police affidavit was factually incorrect and grossly misleading. When confronted, the State attempted to justify the mistake by asserting that the confusion arose because the petitioner and his father shared the same name, leading to a mix-up in records generated through a computer-based system. The Bench, however, categorically rejected this explanation, observing that such an excuse could not absolve the officers of responsibility, particularly when the matter pertained to the deprivation of personal liberty. The Court held that reliance on an automated or “computer-generated” process could not be a defence for failing to verify the accuracy of information submitted under oath to a constitutional court.

The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of the police in filing a false affidavit amounted to a serious dereliction of duty and undermined the integrity of judicial proceedings. The Bench noted that an affidavit filed in court carries a presumption of truth and accuracy, and any false or misleading statement, particularly one that influences the consideration of bail, strikes at the foundation of justice. It emphasised that such negligence or deliberate falsification could have grave consequences for the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In view of the admitted error and the absence of credible justification, the Court held that the case merited the grant of bail. Accordingly, it directed that the petitioner, Anwar Hussain, be released on bail, subject to the conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the Supreme Court also ordered disciplinary and explanatory action against the police officials responsible for the false affidavit. Show cause notices were issued to Mr. Dishesh Aggarwal, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and the officer in charge of the case, as well as to Mr. Indramani Patel, Station House Officer of the concerned police station. The Court directed both officers, along with all others involved in preparing and submitting the incorrect affidavit, to personally appear before the Bench on November 25, 2025. They were also instructed to file their individual explanations at least two days prior to the hearing date. The Bench made it clear that the matter would be taken up again on that date to determine accountability and appropriate action.

Through this order, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that accuracy and integrity in filings before the Court are non-negotiable and that any attempt to mislead the judiciary, especially in matters affecting personal liberty, would invite strict judicial scrutiny and possible penal consequences. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding individual rights and ensuring accountability among law enforcement authorities.