In a significant move underscoring the sanctity of the judiciary, the Allahabad High Court has reopened a shocking 37-year-old case involving a senior police officer who allegedly threatened a sitting judge. The court has emphatically stated that the passage of time cannot absolve such serious misconduct.
A Threat That Echoes Through Decades
The remarkable case came to light during a hearing on a criminal appeal filed by Brindawan and others, who were convicted in a murder case registered at Narahat police station in Lalitpur district. A division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar took serious note of remarks recorded by the trial judge in the original 1988 judgment.
The court, in its order dated November 27, highlighted the grave allegations. It was recorded that B.K. Bhola, the then Superintendent of Police (SP) of Lalitpur, had the audacity to threaten the trial judge. The threat was explicit: the SP warned he would drag the Sessions Judge to the police station if the judge summoned certain police records, wireless messages, or compelled the SP to appear as a defense witness.
Court Directs Action, Refuses to Overlook Misconduct
The High Court bench observed that the conduct of the police officer was egregious. The Sessions Judge had found that the then SP "behaved like a goon and threatened the trial judge." While the trial judge had recommended departmental action at the time, he had been lenient in not initiating criminal contempt proceedings.
Refusing to let the matter fade away, the Allahabad High Court has now issued directives to ensure accountability. The court has ordered the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit. This affidavit must disclose the current status of the officer involved and provide details of any action taken against him over this incident.
Upholding Judicial Dignity Over Time
The core of the court's stance is that the sheer passage of time—37 years in this instance—does not diminish the seriousness of an attack on judicial authority. The bench made it clear that such behavior from a law enforcement officer, aimed at intimidating the judiciary, cannot be ignored or forgotten simply because decades have passed.
This revival of an old case sends a powerful message about the enduring responsibility of public officials and the judiciary's commitment to protecting its own dignity from intimidation, regardless of when the offence occurred.
