The has issued a directive for the personal appearance of the , to address severe discrepancies in the investigation of a high-profile looting and vandalism case at Hotel Negi Grand. Following a detailed examination of the and , a comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed evidence suggesting the involvement of senior police personnel in the incident. The court has expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the investigation conducted thus far, characterizing it as fundamentally deficient and necessitating oversight from the highest levels of the district’s police hierarchy.
The arises from a filed by hotel owner Preeti Bajpai, who alleges that her property was systematically targeted and vandalized by a group of individuals operating with the tacit support, or active participation, of law enforcement. According to the petitioner, the incident, which occurred in , involved the use of heavy machinery—specifically a JCB—to forcibly breach the hotel’s perimeter wall. Subsequent reports and visual evidence presented to the court indicate that the intrusion was followed by the destruction of infrastructure within the premises, including the looting of personal belongings, televisions, and essential security equipment such as DVRs and CCTV systems.
Compelling Evidence and Allegations of Complicity
The court’s decision to summon the Commissioner of Police was heavily influenced by a specific entry dated . This entry records the alleged complicity of police officials, noting that during the events at Hotel Negi Grand, local administration and police presence were observed at the scene. The court highlighted the following extract from the official documentation: “During the incident, the police administration was also visible in the CCTV video footage. On the day of the occurrence, footage captured by individuals on their private phones also shows a JCB breaking the wall of Hotel Negi Grand.”
The diary entry further details the systematic nature of the destruction: “Video footage reveals that the interior of Hotel Grand Negi, including windows, doors, wardrobes, television sets, and CCTV cameras, was vandalized and looted. It is clearly visible from the review of all video footage that individuals named Vivek Kumar Gupta, Yogesh Singh, Brijesh Singh, and Ravikant Bajpai, along with their associates, entered the hotel lawn after breaking the wall and subsequently occupied the premises.”
The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner explicitly identifies Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (ADCP) Kapil Dev Singh as being directly involved in these actions. In response to these grave allegations, the High Court has permitted the petitioner to implead the ADCP as . A formal notice has been issued to the officer, and he is now a party to the ongoing proceedings, setting the stage for a into his conduct.
Judicial Intervention and Investigative Oversight
The bench emphasized that when allegations of are leveled against police officers, the integrity of the investigation is compromised if conducted by subordinate staff who may report to the accused. By mandating the personal appearance of the Commissioner of Police, the court is exercising its constitutional to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with the principles of a and the protection of rights.
The court’s frustration with the status of the probe was palpable in its , order. The judges remarked: “The affidavit filed on behalf of the investigating officer is not satisfactory and shows the deficient nature of the investigation. In view of the involvement of senior police personnel in the incident, the investigation warrants direct supervision by the highest police official of the district.”
By requiring the Commissioner to appear alongside a , the court aims to strip away the layers of administrative delay that have characterized the case since its inception. The court also directed the Government Advocate to ensure that a copy of the order is served to the for the State of Uttar Pradesh, signaling that the matter is being monitored at the state-wide administrative level.
and Pending Developments
The case has seen a protracted . Prior to the current Bench’s intervention, a separate of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena had already sought a on . At that time, the court had stipulated that failure to provide a comprehensive update on the investigation’s progress would necessitate the of the Commissioner of Police. The subsequent finding of "deficient" investigation by the current Bench escalated the urgency of this requirement.
As the matter stands, the petitioner's assertions of police-led vandalism remain untested in a court of law, and the named individuals, including the ADCP, are afforded the opportunity to respond to the notice. The case is now scheduled for further hearing on , as a fresh matter. The court's insistence on the presence of the Commissioner on that date underscores the gravity of the situation and the judiciary's commitment to holding law enforcement accountable when the machinery of justice appears to have been subverted by those meant to uphold it. The focus of the next hearing will likely shift from the preliminary evidence of the looting to the of the and the specific answers provided by the Commissioner regarding the alleged failures of his subordinates.
judicial oversight - investigative deficiency
