Allahabad High Court Directs DGP To Issue Circular For Strict Action Against Negligent Cops Who Delay Instructions In Bail Pleas

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this order while observing that the liberty of an accused cannot be allowed to be curtailed merely because of the negligence on the part of police officials in furnishing necessary instructions to the Court.

The HC was hearing a bail application filed by one Vinod Ram booked under Sections 140(1), 61(2) and 238 BNS. When the matter was previously heard on October 8, the AGA was directed to seek instructions regarding the investigation and the recovery of the abductee.

However, when the matter was taken up on November 17, the Court was informed that despite a letter sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ballia, no instruction had been supplied.

Taking a serious view of the delay, the Court had termed this omission as "nothing but interference in the administration of justice" and noted that such an act is 'contemptuous'. Consequently, the Court had directed the SSP, Ballia, to appear personally.

In compliance with the Court's order, Sri Om Veer Singh, Superintendent of Police, Ballia, filed a personal affidavit on November 25 and informed the Court that the office of the Government Advocate had indeed issued a communication.

However, the affidavit admitted that despite receiving the same, the IO did not provide necessary instructions and therefore, a preliminary enquiry has been initiated against the SI concerned and he had been suspended till the conclusion of the enquiry.

Regarding the merits of the investigation, the police submitted that the body of the abductee, was not traceable despite best efforts of police as accused might have thrown him in the river.

Justice Deshwal remarked that the applicant's bail application could not be disposed of for more than one month solely because of the negligence of the IO.

"Liberty of the applicant has been curtailed because of this reason and he remained in jail for more than one month unnecessarily despite being having a case of bail."

Expressing its displeasure, the Court proposed a compensation for the applicant by imposing a cost on the State Government. However, the AGA requested that the cost may not be imposed and he assured that in future the State will endeavor to provide instructions in timely manner.

Considering this submission, the Court refused to impose any cost.