The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit regarding the status of a former Superintendent of Police (SP), B.K. Bhola, who was accused of threatening a Sessions Judge in 1988. The Court took serious note of the trial judge’s observations that the police officer had threatened to drag him to the police station if certain records were summoned.
In a criminal appeal pending since 1988, the Allahabad High Court noticed “damning” remarks made by the Trial Judge in the impugned judgment against the then Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, B.K. Bhola. The officer had allegedly threatened the judge for attempting to summon police records and wireless messages. Describing the officer’s behavior as that of a “goon,” the High Court has ordered the DGP to disclose the officer’s current status and the action taken against him based on the trial court’s strictures.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1986 (State v. Brindawan and others) and Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1986 (State v. Gaya alias Gaya Prasad), decided on April 30, 1988, by Mr. L.N. Rai, the then Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. The trial involved offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertaining to Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur.
While hearing the appeal filed by the convicts, the Division Bench of the High Court examined the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge and noted specific remarks recorded in paragraph nos. 190 and 191 regarding the conduct of the district’s police chief at the time.
Observations on Police Conduct
The High Court expressed shock at the conduct of B.K. Bhola recorded by the Trial Judge. The Bench observed that the remarks were “very serious” and indicated that the officer had the “audacity and dare” to intimidate the judicial officer.
The Court noted:
“The remarks go to the extent that B.K. Bhola, Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur had the audacity and dare to threaten the learned Trial Judge of dragging him to the police station if he summoned certain records from the Police, certain wireless messages, or compelled the S.P. to appear as a defense witness.”
The Bench further observed that while the Trial Judge had recommended departmental action against the SP, he had been “kind in not making a reference to this Court for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.”
Characterizing the gravity of the situation, the High Court stated:
“The remarks of the learned Trial Judge in paragraph nos. 190 and 191 of the impugned judgment are so damning that these cannot be overlooked.” “…the District Superintendent of Police was found by the learned Sessions Judge to have behaved like a goon and threatened the learned Trial Judge.”
Court’s Directions
Uncertain of the current status of the officer after nearly four decades, the Bench remarked, “We do not know if B.K. Bhola, who, in all probability, would have retired by now, lives in this mortal world or not.”
Consequently, the Court issued the following directions to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh:
- File a personal affidavit on or before December 9, 2025.
- Indicate whether B.K. Bhola is still alive.
- If alive, furnish his complete particulars, residential address, and whether he is currently in service or receiving a pension.
- Disclose any other report regarding his status.
- Report specifically “what action was taken against B.K. Bhola on the basis of the directions of the learned Trial Judge carried in paragraph nos. 190 and 191 of the judgment impugned in this appeal.”
The Court clarified that while other officials were also named in the judgment, they were “sundry officers,” and the primary focus remained on the Superintendent of Police due to the severity of his misconduct.
The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to communicate the order to the DGP, U.P., Lucknow, within 24 hours. The matter is listed for the next hearing on December 9, 2025.
