NEW DELHI: Reminding police personnel that they have to forgo their personal bias relating to religion, race or caste after donning the uniform, Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on Maharashtra police for not holding a probe into the statement of an eyewitness in the communal riots in Akola in May 2023, reports Amit Anand Choudhary. The eyewitness, Mohammad Afzal, claimed he could identify one of the assailants who assaulted him and killed an auto driver. Afzal said the driver was killed as he was mistaken for a Muslim. The court sought an SIT to be set up comprising senior police officers of Hindu and Muslim communities.The riot was triggered by an objectionable social media post resulting in the death of one person, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. The same people had attacked the eyewitness, Mohammad Afzal , who was then 17. Though the police recorded his statement in the hospital, it did not conduct any probe into the allegation that the deceased was murdered under the impression that he belonged to the Muslim community. He alleged that the deceased was killed as he was plying an auto rickshaw of a Muslim, which bore a sticker with the name ‘Garib Nawaz’.Taking strong exception to state police inaction, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma said it was “total dereliction” of duty on the part of officials, including superintendent of police of Akola. “Needless to state, when members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise. They must be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, this did not happen,” SC said. It directed the state’s home secretary to constitute a special investigation team comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into allegations made by Afzal by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him and take appropriate action. The SIT has been directed to file a probe report in court within three months. It also directed the secretary to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officers and take measures to sensitise the force. The court also raised questions on Bombay HC which had disbelieved Afzal’s allegation and found fault with his relatives for not trying to lodge a report with police immediately.“Though the affidavits filed by the police inspector of the Old City Police Station, Akola, tried to attribute motives to the appellant and the same was willingly accepted and acted upon by the high court, we are not persuaded to agree at this stage. It was for the police to investigate the truth or otherwise of the specific allegations made by the appellant, a 17-year-old boy, who asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murder of Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and was himself assaulted by the very same assailants. If, in fact, the deceased was really murdered under the impression that he belonged to Muslim community and the assailants were not of that community, that was a fact that had to be ascertained after thorough and proper investigation. When the appellant claimed that he could identify one of the four assailants, that claim also required to be followed up with detailed investigation by ascertaining the location of the person so identified at the relevant time through mobile phone location, call data records, etc,” the court said.SC said neither the police inspector nor the high court were correct in their assumption and understanding that it was for Afzal or his relatives to pursue the police to take necessary steps in that regard and that the police were not required to take any steps, despite their knowledge of the commission of a cognisable offence. “What is even more distressing to note is that the appellant made a written complaint to the SP of Akola on June 1, 2023, through his father, but to no avail... There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether he even undertook an inquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the information received, as mandated by the provision. This conduct on the part of a superior police officer…is indeed a cause for great concern,” the court said.The apex court also expressed surprise that a police inspector filed a reply on behalf of the govt in the case. “It is surprising that, in a matter involving the State, represented by the chief secretary, and its home ministry, wherein a serious issue has been raised before the highest court in the country, no senior official chose to file an affidavit before this court and left it to an inspector of the local police station to do the needful. More so, as serious allegations were made against a superintendent of Police, who was impleaded by name,” it said.