Back
Fines UP Govt ₹1 Lakh over Police Negligence Causing Extra Jail Time
In a rare order, the has slapped a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the after finding that police officers’ inaction directly resulted in a 15‑day delay in deciding a . The amount, the court directed, must be paid to the accused who remained in jail unnecessarily.
The case arose from a bail plea moved by one Amit, who was booked in Case Crime No. 131 of 2026 under and at . Amit had been in custody since .
When Instructions Go Missing
The matter was taken up by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal on . On that date, the Additional Government Advocate sought more time, stating that the necessary instructions from the police had not been supplied despite repeated reminders from the Joint Director of Prosecution. Perturbed by a pattern of delays in cases from Gorakhpur, the Court directed the , to appear in person.
Complying with the order, SSP Dr. Kaustubh appeared before the High Court. He filed a personal affidavit detailing that the intimation for instructions was promptly forwarded to the concerned police station. An internal inquiry, however, revealed that three officers— SHO Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sub‑Inspector Sarvesh Kumar, and Constable Ramesh Yadav —had been grossly negligent. They were immediately attached to police lines. Dr. Kaustubh also informed the Court that fresh R.T. messages had been issued to all Circle Officers and SHOs to strictly follow a DGP circular on timely submission of instructions. He tendered an unconditional apology and assured the Court that such lapses would not recur.
The Victim’s Own Statement
On the merits of the bail, the applicant’s counsel submitted that although the FIR alleged enticement and kidnapping of the ’s daughter, the victim herself had given a clear statement under . She stated that she had left home voluntarily because she was in a relationship with the applicant and that he had not committed any wrong against her. The applicant had no criminal history and a charge‑sheet had already been filed, negating the need for .
Justice Cannot Wait
The Court found that the applicant’s liberty was directly impacted by the police officials’ failure. In a sharp observation that now defines the ruling, the bench recorded:
“…it is clear that due to the negligence on the part of some of the police officers mentioned in the personal affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, this could not be disposed of on , and the same could be finally disposed of today by releasing the applicant on bail.”
And further:
“Therefore, it is clear that due to the negligence on the part of certain police officers…the applicant remained in jail for more than 15 days.”
Consequently, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the State Government, to be paid directly to the applicant. The State, however, was given liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after a due process.
Bail Granted with Stringent Safeguards
On the bail prayer itself, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant relief. It directed that Amit be released on furnishing a and two , subject to conditions aimed at preventing , ensuring cooperation in trial, and prohibiting any criminal activity after release. The trial court was instructed to send the through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) for an early release.
This judgment sends a powerful signal that bureaucratic indifference to court deadlines will not be tolerated, especially when it curtails . While the bail decision underscores the evidentiary value of a victim’s statement when it contradicts the prosecution narrative, the cost order reaffirms that the State must bear the consequences of its officers’ lapses—even if it later recovers the money from those at fault.
