Police Negligence Delays Bail Hearing, Leaves Man In Jail For 15 Extra Days: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On UP Govt

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed that the amount so imposed be paid to the bail applicant. However, the State Government has been given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.

The Court passed this order while granting bail to one Amit, who was lodged in jail since March 20, 2026, in connection with a rape and kidnapping case under relevant provisions of BNS and the POCSO Act.

The matter was heard on July 8, 2026, and on that date, the AGA sought further time to obtain instructions as the instructions were not supplied despite repeated reminders from the office of the Joint Director of Prosecution, High Court, Allahabad.

Taking serious note of the fact that instructions were routinely delayed in multiple cases from Gorakhpur, the High Court had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Gorakhpur, to appear personally.

Appearing before the Court, SSP Dr Kaustubh filed a personal affidavit explaining that the intimation for instructions had been forwarded to the concerned police station immediately.

Following an internal inquiry into the delay, SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector Sarvesh Kumar, and Constable Ramesh Yadav of PS Bansgaon were found negligent and were subsequently attached to the police lines.

The SSP tendered an unconditional apology to the Court and submitted that fresh directions had been issued to all Circle Officers and Station House Officers (SHOs) in Gorakhpur to ensure strict compliance with the DGP's circular regarding the timely submission of instructions in bail matters.

Accepting the SSP's explanation, the Court observed:

"…it is clear that due to the negligence on the part of some of the police officers mentioned in the personal affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, this bail application could not be disposed of on 01.07.2026, and the same could be finally disposed of today by releasing the applicant on bail."

"Therefore, it is clear that due to the negligence on the part of certain police officers…the applicant remained in jail for more than 15 days", the bench observed as it imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the State Government, to be paid to the applicant.

On the merits of the case, the bench noted that while the allegation was of enticing away the daughter of the first informant, the victim, in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, clearly stated that she herself left the house as she was in a relationship with the applicant.

The bench was also apprised that the applicant had not committed any wrong with the victim and that he has no criminal history.

Lastly, it was submitted that a charge sheet had been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant, who has been in jail since March 20, 2026.

Against this backdrop, the Court proceeded to grant him bail.

Case Title - Amit Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 441