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

Briefly put, the Court was hearing the bail plea of a father-in-law and mother-in-law accused in a dowry death case lodged under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Finding that there was no sufficient material against the applicants to show that they harassed the victim for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry prior to her death or subjected her to cruelty, the Court granted them bail.

The Court also noted that the independent witnesses pointed to a petty household dispute between the husband and wife.

However, before parting with the matter, the bench took serious note of the conduct of the police officials in handling repeated requests for instructions in the matter.

The Court noted that although the Office of the Joint Director (Prosecution), Allahabad High Court, had supplied a copy of the bail application to the police pairokar on June 17 and an alert was also given to the Superintendent of Police on June 19 with a reminder on June 29, the police failed to provide the necessary instructions.

During a hearing on July 3, 2026, the Court directed the prosecution to obtain the PDF of the case diary from the CCTNS portal. Instead of complying, the concerned police officials sent only the applicants' case history, not the actual case diary. This prompted the Court to summon the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) to appear in person.

On the next hearing, the Court examined the personal explanations of the SHO, the Sub-Inspector, and the Circle Officer (the designated Investigating Officer).

The Court accepted the SHO's explanation that he was on leave and handling law-and-order duties for the Kanwar procession.

However, Sub-Inspector Himanshu Panwar blamed a "communication gap" for the failure to send the case history, while the Circle Officer revealed that his attached Head Constable had completely failed to inform him of the High Court's communications.

The bench found it "very surprising" that more than 25 days had elapsed since receipt of the notice and, despite alerts, reminders, and oral directions, the instructions were still not supplied, with the officers shifting responsibility among themselves.

The Court observed that it would be appropriate for the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action against the concerned officials.

Noting that the bail application could have been decided on July 3, 2026, but remained pending solely because of police negligence, the Court observed:

"Since the present bail application could have been disposed of on 03.07.2026, but could not be disposed of as, despite repeated reminders and oral intimation, the requisite instructions were not supplied to this Court, it remained pending for more than ten days due to the laxity on the part of the police".

Accordingly, the Court imposed ₹50,000 costs upon the State Government, to be paid to the applicants, on account of the negligence on the part of the police in the disposal of the present bail application.

The Court also directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, through the Registrar (Compliance) for appropriate action.