Uttar Pradesh DGP Rajeev Krishna appeared personally before the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday after being summoned by a bench of Justice Sameer Jain to explain why police officers were showing 'reluctance' to obey/comply with orders passed by the Court.

The DGP's appearance came against the backdrop of the Court's earlier concern that non-compliance by police officers was resulting in bail applications in murder cases remaining pending for considerable periods of time.

During today's hearing, the Bench also raised concerns regarding the quality of police investigations, compliance with Court orders and timely submission of police instructions and records.

Justice Jain said the issue was not confined to the case in which the DGP had originally been summoned. He orally remarked thus:

"It is not about one case; in many cases, it is seen that Court orders are not complied with and the investigations are conducted in a tainted manner. It is the DGP's responsibility to ensure investigations are conducted properly".

The Court then asked the DGP what steps had been taken to address the concerns. In response, the DGP referred to the conviction rate. The Bench, however, made clear that conviction-rate data did not address the concern before it.

"You are stating about the conviction rate. We deal with botched-up investigations", Justice Jain said.

Justice Jain further questioned the relevance of the data being placed before the Bench. "What is the point of the data you are referring to? We, as HC judges, know the reality", he said.

The Bench also raised concerns regarding the availability of investigation records, particularly CCTV footage. The Court orally said:

"Sometimes everything is in the affidavit. But when we call for the record, there is no footage".

Justice Jain also referred to the time taken by police authorities to furnish instructions in matters concerning personal liberty.

He noted that previously, 10 days' time was granted for instructions, whereas now the Supreme Court has said that three days are enough in matters of personal liberty. The Bench then asked the DGP:

"How will you ensure that instructions from the police arrive before the Court on time?"

The DGP assured the Court and referred to the existence of committees dealing with the issue. During today's hearing, the Bench also told the DGP:

"You are all very competent. We will tell you the problems, and you can work out the solutions".

It may be noted that last month, the same Bench had expressed concerns over non-compliance with the court's orders by the Police while hearing a bail application filed by Pushpraj Singh alias Babloo in a case involving murder allegations.

The Court had directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to appear personally before it and explain why police officers were showing 'reluctance' to obey/comply with orders passed by the Court.

The Court had noted that on July 16, 2026, the State had been directed to file a detailed counter-affidavit concerning a discrepancy between the alleged time of the incident and the timing reflected in CCTV footage dated June 21, 2025.

However, the State had not filed the counter-affidavit despite the direction.

When the matter came up, the Additional Government Advocate, Dr SB Maurya, informed the Court that he had sent letters twice in this regard, but despite those efforts, no one appeared to have filed the counter-affidavit.

The High Court had taken a serious view of the State's failure to comply with its direction. "This is the utter disrespect of this Court", Justice Jain had remarked.

Justice Jain further remarked that the Court was now facing such a problem "very frequently", in which police officers appear reluctant to comply with orders passed by the High Court. The Court had said:

"It reflects, police officers are reluctant to comply the orders passed by this Court and due to their attitude bail applications which are of murder cases remain pending for considerable period of time".

Against this backdrop, the Bench had directed the Director General of Police, State of Uttar Pradesh, to appear in person before the Court.

The DGP had been directed to explain as to "why now a days, his officers are reluctant to obey/comply the orders passed by this Court".

Case title - Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P