Allahabad HC Directs Basti SP To Remain In Courtroom 'Till Its Rising' For Filing False Affidavit In A Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court last week directed the Superintendent of Police, Basti, Dr Yesh Veer Singh, to remain in Court till the rising of the Court for placing incorrect facts in his personal Affidavit filed regarding a Murder case. HC warns him to be careful in future.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the affidavit filed by him sought to save his subordinate police officer by shifting the burden upon the Joint Director (Prosecution), Basti.

The Court passed the stricture while taking a lenient view of the matter, considering the apology of the Police Chief, and warned him to remain more careful in the future while filing affidavits in the High Court or any Court of Law. The Court also granted bail to the murder accused.

Briefly put, the accused (Manjeet Kumar) filed his bail application, and the Court sought instructions. However, despite repeated reminders sent by the Joint Director, Prosecution, HC, instructions were not supplied to the AGA for the State.

Therefore, the Court earlier directed the Superintendent of Police, Basti, to file a personal affidavit to explain the negligence on his part.

In his affidavit (dated March 28, 2026), the SP concerned blamed the Joint Director of Prosecution for the delay and claimed that he was asked to prepare instructions on February 14, but he delayed them until March 17.

Relying on the SP's affidavit, the Court summoned the Joint Director of Prosecution. Appearing before the HC, he defended himself by stating that it is the duty of the IO to prepare instructions and in this case, he received the comments from the IO only on March 16, and the next day, after examining the same, he forwarded it for filing.

Taking note of this stance, the bench observed that the police enquiry and the SP's affidavit were false and were intended to protect the negligent IO. Hence, the bench directed both officials (Joint Director Prosecution and the SP) to appear in person on the next date.

Now, on April 16, when confronted with these facts, the SP concerned realised his mistake and said that he had not intended to present incorrect facts and that the pariokar had given him the wrong information. He, however, offered an unconditional apology.

Considering his stance, the bench observed that "a person who has been given the charge of the district must be mindful to any information given by his subordinates, especially by a Head Constable or Sub-Inspector, and he must be aware that any incorrect fact on affidavit before the High Court may attract proceedings of criminal contempt".

The bench, however, took a lenient view of the matter and instead of passing an order against him, it directed him to remain in the court till its rising.

Regarding the merits of the case, the bench noted that there was no eye-witness to the incident in question except the last seen of the deceased in the company of the applicant and it was the admitted case of the applicant that the deceased and the applicant were in a love affair and both of them consumed poison. Thereafter, the deceased received injuries from an accidental fall, and no weapon has been recovered at the point of the accused.

The bench thus granted bail to the applicant-accused.

Case title - Manjeet Kumar vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 230

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 230

Click Here To Read/Download Order