Wednesday, August 10 2005 16:52 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: Adding to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's woes over the post-Godhra riots, the Supreme Court has put a question mark over the role of State police in the Naroda Patiya riots case.

It has also expressed its displeasure on the issue to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister Shivaraj Patil besides the State Governor.

Taking serious note of the laxity of Gujarat Police to arrest Shashikant, a key accused in the Naroda Patiya case, a Bench of Justice B N Agrawal and Justice A K Mathur said, "We really fail to understand in what manner Gujarat Police is acting. Either they are in connivance with the accused or thoroughly worthless".

While indicating that it would summon the Director General of the State police to appear before it if no satisfactory explanation was given for non-arrest of the accused, the Bench directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to "the Governor and Chief Minister of Gujarat as well as Prime Minister and Home Minister of India."

The DGP, in his report dated February 7, 2005 to the Court, had stated that action under Sections 82 and 83 (attachment of property of absconding accused) of Criminal Procedure Code were being resorted to for apprehending the accused.

DGP filed another report in March stating that proclamation under Section 83 of CrPc had already been issued.

The Court said, "A period of about five months has expired, but we do not know whether any action under Section 83 for attachment of the property of the accused has been taken or not."

It referred to a recent communication from the office of DGP signed by the Additional DGP and said, "Curiously, no where is has been mentioned therein as to whether any such action under Section 83 has been taken or not."

While posting the matter for further hearing on August 22, the Bench said on that day an affidavit should be filed by a responsible officer on behalf of the State of Gujarat stating as to what action has been taken under Section 83 against the accused for attachment of his property.

This was followed by a warning. "In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished in the affidavit for not apprehending the accused, on the next date of hearing the Court will consider desirability of directing the DGP, Gujarat, to appear in person," the Bench said.