Allahabad High Court Orders UP Police To Pay ₹25K To Woman Kept In Jail For 12 Extra Days Due To Police Negligence
The Allahabad High Court last week directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to pay ₹25,000 to a woman as compensation for 12 extra days she remained in jail because the police department failed to supply timely instructions to the state counsel in her bail matter.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the court could not decide the bail application on October 12, 2026, because the police failed to provide the necessary instructions to the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA).
The Court directed the police department to pay the amount to the woman within one month. It also granted liberty to the department to recover the amount from the salaries of police officers found negligent in the inquiry.
"Accordingly, the police department is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to applicant within one month and department is at liberty to recover the same from the salary of the police officers found negligent in the enquiry" the Court ordered.
The Court was dealing with the bail plea filed by applicant-Leelawati Devi, an accused in a dowry death case. She was the mother-in-law of the deceased woman, who allegedly died by suicide by hanging after a dispute over household issues.
The matter was heard on October 12, when the AGA informed the Court that instructions had not been supplied despite a letter dated September 29, 2026, sent to the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Deoria.
The letter had, however, been received by the SP's office on October 1.
The Court consequently directed the SP, Deoria, to appear personally and explain why the instructions had not been supplied.
On October 24, SP Abhijit R. Shanker appeared before the Court and explained that the letter had been handed over to the concerned parokar on October 2. He apprised the court that instead of getting the instructions prepared, the official (parokar) kept the letter with him and proceeded on leave.
The SP informed the Court that action had been taken against the concerned parokar. He also stated that an inquiry had been ordered against the Circle Officer, who was responsible for supervising compliance with the High Court's order.
The Court accepted the SP's explanation but expected him to be more careful in future.
It also noted that, pursuant to an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, the Director General of Police had issued a circular on January 6, 2026, directing district police chiefs to ensure timely supply of instructions to AGAs in bail matters.
The Court observed that the bail application could not be disposed of on October 12 despite being a "clear-cut case for bail". It was taken up only on October 24, more than 12 days later.
"Therefore, the applicant, being a lady, has remained in jail for 12 days due to the fault of the police department", the Court said.
On the merits of the case, the Court recorded the submissions of the applicant's counsel that the applicant had been falsely implicated on the basis of general and vague allegations.
It was argued that there was no sufficient material showing that she had harassed the deceased over dowry demands. The State, on the other hand, opposed the bail application but could not dispute the facts presented by the defence.
The Court, however, granted her bail considering the nature of the offence, the evidence and the applicant's alleged role without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.