Supreme Court Takes Action Against Indore Police Officer Over Stock Witness Practice
The Supreme Court of India has taken a firm stand against questionable police practices in Indore. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan issued a directive on January 13, 2026. They ordered Inspector Indramani Patel, the Station House Officer of Chandan Nagar Police Station, to be sent to police lines immediately.
The court prohibited Patel from taking any investigative or supervisory roles until further notice. This decision came during a hearing on a bail plea application. The bench expressed serious concerns about fairness and impartiality in police investigations.
The Core Issue: Repeated Use of Same Witnesses
At the heart of this matter lies the practice of using "stock witnesses." The Supreme Court observed that Patel had allegedly allowed repeated use of the same witnesses across multiple cases. This practice, the court noted, undermines the very foundation of fair investigation.
The bench stated clearly that such methods contradict the principles of a country governed by rule of law. They emphasized that using stock witnesses could be considered anathema to proper legal procedures.
Shocking Numbers: 176 Cases Under Scrutiny
Court records reveal staggering details about this case. Between November 2023 and November 2024, police filed 176 First Information Reports at Chandan Nagar Police Station. Among these, investigators allegedly used stock witnesses in 78 excise cases, 62 narcotics cases, and 25 Arms Act cases.
Patel defended himself before the court. He claimed he wasn't the investigating officer in any of these 176 cases. According to his statement, 26 different investigators conducted spot seizures and investigations. He mentioned that 35 independent witnesses supported the on-the-spot proceedings.
The Case That Exposed the Pattern
The situation came to light through the case of Anwar Hussain, who remains in jail. Hussain faced accusations of selling Public Distribution System rice in the open market for profit. After the High Court dismissed his bail plea, he approached the Supreme Court with a special leave application.
Police initially presented Hussain's criminal record showing multiple serious charges. These included theft, Arms Act violations from 2008-2009, and rape and criminal intimidation charges from 2023. Later, the Madhya Pradesh government apologized for presenting incorrect antecedents.
The corrected records showed Hussain faced only charges of obscene acts, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and violations under the essential commodities Act. Court documents indicated one case had already concluded through compromise between parties.
Legal Intervention and Further Allegations
Madhya Pradesh High Court lawyer Asad Ali filed an intervention application in November 2025. Ali had personal experience with Chandan Nagar police. In August 2024, police booked him for allegedly assaulting officers and refusing medical examination during routine checking.
By December 2024, a court acquitted Ali due to lack of evidence. He then filed a complaint against the police officials. In his Supreme Court application, Ali accused SHO Patel of using stock witnesses against him after he refused to pay a bribe.
Ali's lawyers presented compelling evidence. They showed FIR records from one year containing the same witness names across 176 police cases. They argued this clearly demonstrated a pattern of systematic abuse of power.
Illegal Detention and Handcuffing Incident
The Supreme Court also examined a habeas corpus petition by Raja Dubey. Dubey alleged that Inspector Patel illegally detained and handcuffed his brother-in-law in November 2025, despite the man having committed no offense.
When summoned before the Indore Bench of the High Court in December, Patel didn't dispute detaining and handcuffing Dubey. He justified this action based on the seriousness of the alleged offense. However, Patel admitted that no court order authorized the handcuffing.
The High Court made strong observations about this incident. They found Patel's actions in gross violation of a citizen's fundamental right to life. The court directed the Indore Police Commissioner to explain what departmental and criminal action would be taken against the officer.
Police Department's Response and Actions
Following questions raised by the Supreme Court during hearings, police initiated action against Patel. On November 27, 2025, Indore DCP Zone 4 Anand Kaladgi issued a show cause notice to the inspector.
In a December 7 report, Kaladgi stated that witness selection in the 176 cases was based on availability at incident locations. Indore Commissioner of Police Santosh Kumar Singh also acknowledged the stock witness issue.
Commissioner Singh noted that 37 witnesses had been used multiple times by 26 investigation officers. He stated that until receiving reports from investigating officers, alternative measures would be discussed with all stakeholders to ensure fairness.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the High Court's observations when ordering Patel's transfer. This case highlights ongoing concerns about police practices and the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining investigative integrity.
