Allahabad HC fines UP Govt Rs 50,000 over bail delay

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Uttar Pradesh Government for negligence by police officials of Bijnor, which delayed the disposal of a bail application in a case by more than 10 days.

However, the State Government may recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry, the court said.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, which was hearing a bail application filed by Yaseen and another accused in a dowry death case, said the plea could have been disposed of on July 3 but could not be done as, despite repeated reminders and oral intimation, the requisite instructions were not supplied to the court. “... It remained pending for more than 10 days due to the laxity on the part of the police,” Justice Deshwal said. The court on July 3 allowed the bail plea filed by both the in-laws of the deceased woman after finding that there was no sufficient material against the applicants to show that they harassed her for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry prior to her death or subjected her to cruelty.

The court also noted that the independent witnesses pointed to a petty household dispute between the husband and wife. It said 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 the hearing on July 3, the court directed the prosecution to obtain the PDF of the case diary from the CCTNS portal. Instead of complying, the police officials concerned sent only the applicants’ case history, not the actual case diary. This prompted the court to summon the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned to appear in person. 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 said 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.