UP Police Investigation Quality Shall Be Improved; Cops Will Comply With Court Orders In Time: DGP Assures Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh DGP Rajeev Krishna appeared personally before the Allahabad High Court on September 1 and assured a bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the quality of UP Police investigations would be improved and that police officers would comply with the Court's orders in time.
The assurance came during the hearing of a bail application in a murder case. Justice Jain had earlier expressed concern over the continuous non-compliance of its orders by Investigating Officers and also raised concerns regarding the quality of investigation, particularly in heinous offences like murder.
The DGP apologized for the issues being faced by the High Court and assured the Court that in future "no such mistake shall be committed by the any police officer" and that the orders passed by the Court "will be complied in time".
The Bench also said it hoped that the DGP's officers would, in the future, "diligently comply" with its orders.
It further expressed hope that due to police negligence, "the work of this Court will not be suffered and cases will not remain pending due to the non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court".
Interacting with the DGP, the High Court also expressed concern about the quality of investigation, particularly in heinous offences like murder.
In response to the concern, the DGP submitted that the necessary steps had already been taken to improve the investigation and that training programs were also underway. He assured the Bench that "very soon quality of investigation shall be improved".
The DGP further assured the Court that instructions in bail matters would also be provided in time to the office of the Government Advocate, and that such a problem would not arise again in future.
Read more about the Court hearing: UP DGP Appears Before Allahabad High Court, Assures Compliance With Court Orders; Bench Flags 'Tainted' Investigations
Background of the matter
The bail application concerned the alleged murder of a person by firearm. According to the prosecution, Applicant-accused (Pushpraj Singh) was named in the FIR and had caused the firearm injury resulting in the deceased's death.
The sister of the deceased, cited as an eyewitness, had also stated that the applicant shot the deceased. The post-mortem report indicated that the deceased died due to a firearm injury.
The accused, however, disputed the prosecution's version and argued that the informant's side was the real aggressor. It was submitted that three persons from the applicant's side had also sustained injuries during the incident.
The accused's counsel relied upon CCTV footage. According to him, the footage showed the deceased alive at about 7 PM, whereas the prosecution alleged that he had been shot dead at 6 PM.
Accused's counsel also argued that the footage reflected seven fires, while the prosecution's case was that only one fire had been made by the applicant.
The Court acknowledged the discrepancy, observing that the CCTV footage suggests that till 07.00 PM, the deceased was alive, while according to the prosecution, he was shot dead at 06.00 PM. However, it held that any discrepancy could be properly considered by the trial court during the trial.
The Court similarly noted the CCTV footage showing seven fires, contrary to the prosecution's allegation of a single fire, but observed that the Investigating Officer had recorded the number based on the noise of the alleged fire. This issue, too, was left for the trial court's proper appreciation.
The Bench also considered a video statement of the deceased allegedly recorded by a journalist. Although the statement did not specifically say that the applicant caused the firearm injury, it included the applicant's name along with those of the other accused.
Ultimately, the High Court held that, at the bail stage, prima facie it cannot be said that the applicant was innocent and rejected the bail application.
Case title - Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650