Back
Allahabad HC Slaps Basti SP with Courtroom Detention Over , Grants Bail in Chilling Murder Case
In a dual ruling blending sharp administrative rebuke with mercy on bail, the granted relief to murder accused Manjeet Kumar while directing Basti's Superintendent of Police (SP) Yashveer Singh to remain in court " " for filing a misleading affidavit. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal's bench, as reported in underscored the perils of unverified police submissions in liberty matters.
Procedural Chaos: From Delayed Instructions to Blame Game
The saga began with Manjeet Kumar's bail plea in Case Crime No. 226 of 2025 under at Police Station Walterganj, Basti. Filed after his arrest on , the application hit snags when the state failed to provide instructions despite repeated High Court nudges via the Joint Director (Prosecution), High Court, Allahabad.
Frustrated, the court ordered personal affidavits from Sub-Inspector Upendra Singh and others. The SP's , affidavit wrongly pinned the delay on Joint Director (Prosecution) Rajiv Kumar, claiming he dawdled from to . An internal probe by Circle Officer, Sadar, Basti, scapegoated Head Constable Manoj Kumar Yadav.
But cracks emerged: The Joint Director countered with a government order ( ) mandating Investigating Officers (IOs) to draft parawise comments, which he merely verifies. He received them on —signed by the IO on —and forwarded them promptly, backed by register extracts.
Love Affair Gone Wrong or Calculated Killing? Arguments Unpacked
Kumar's counsel, and , painted a tragic romance: The accused and deceased Mishlawati were lovers, opposed by her family. On , at 8 a.m., while she attended a nature's call, they quarreled, consumed insufficient poison, fainted, and she suffered head injuries from a fall. Key defenses included:
- 17-day FIR delay unexplained.
- Inquest report: No injuries.
- Postmortem: Contused swellings on head regions, possibly from accidental fall; no recovery of bricks or weapons.
- No criminal history; charge-sheet filed, ending custodial need.
Opposing fiercely, and , joined by informant counsel , highlighted eyewitnesses: Pooja, Shobha, Sheetal, Bindu saw Kumar stalking; Roopa Devi and Jamuna Devi witnessed a quarrel with a brick in hand. The FIR alleged abduction, marriage pressure, strangulation, and poisoning.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: Exposing Falsehoods, Applying Bail Benchmarks
Justice Deshwal dismantled the police narrative. The SP's affidavit
"appears to have been prepared to protect the Investigating Officer,"
constituting potential contempt. On
, with both officials present, the SP apologized unconditionally, blaming a
pairokar
's faulty info and promising action.
"The 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."
Taking a "lenient view," the court spared contempt but ordered the SP's extended stay as a lesson. On merits, absent direct eyewitnesses—only " " evidence—and Kumar's admitted love affair with mutual poisoning, plus no weapon recovery, bail followed Supreme Court precedents like Kapil Wadhawan vs (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038), emphasizing trial pendency over presumptive guilt. The In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2024) 10 SCC 685 also guided swift release protocols via .
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On Police Accountability
:
"Filing of a
on incorrect averments before the High Court amounts to contempt."
-
SP's Motive Exposed
:
"Superintendent of Police, Basti has provided incorrect information... to save his subordinate police officer by shifting the burden upon the Joint Director (Prosecution), Basti."
-
Bail Rationale
:
"No
to the incident in question except the
of the deceased in the company of the applicant... deceased appeared to have received injuries on accidental fall and no weapon has been recovered."
Bail with Strings: Liberty Restored, Future Safeguards
Kumar was released on , with mandates against tampering, crime, or adjournments—breach inviting cancellation. Verification of ID, Aadhaar, and mobiles was ordered, alongside e-release via .
This ruling signals zero tolerance for affidavit fibs in High Courts, potentially chilling hasty police defenses, while reinforcing bail as default in non-heinous, trial-stage cases sans ironclad proof. For Basti police, it's a wake-up: Verify before you swear.
