HC Summons ADG Over Police 'Cover-Up' in Extortion Case Involving Head Constable

ALLAHABAD – In a significant move underscoring the judiciary's role in ensuring investigative integrity, the Allahabad High Court has summoned the Additional Director General of Police (ADG) for the Varanasi zone. The Court took this extraordinary step after expressing grave concerns about a potential "cover-up" by local police in an extortion case where a Head Constable is the primary accused.

A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad not only ordered the personal appearance of the high-ranking official but also vacated the interim protection against arrest previously granted to the accused, signaling a zero-tolerance approach to perceived interference in the criminal justice process.

The bench issued the directive while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Randhir Singh, a Head Constable with the CBCID in Varanasi, and his co-petitioner, Rina Singh, who sought to quash the FIR against them. The Court's intervention highlights the persistent challenges of ensuring impartial investigations when law enforcement personnel are themselves accused of serious crimes.

Allegations of Extortion and Systematic Coercion

The case stems from an FIR alleging a sophisticated scheme of extortion and coercion. According to the complaint, the petitioners, Head Constable Randhir Singh and Rina Singh, forcibly obtained 40 blank, signed cheques and five blank, signed papers from the first informant.

The FIR details a pattern of harassment where these instruments were allegedly used to systematically extort money. It is claimed that the cheques were frequently presented for encashment by various associates of the accused and deliberately dishonoured. This was purportedly done to create a basis for dragging the informant into a web of endless litigation, thereby coercing him into making payments.

The petitioners have been booked under a wide array of sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions related to extortion, coercion, and criminal intimidation.

The Court's Scathing Observations on Police Inaction

The turning point in the hearing was the state counsel's failure to provide the court with updated instructions on the investigation's progress, despite a specific direction issued during a previous hearing on September 25, 2025. This lapse was interpreted by the bench not as a mere procedural delay but as a symptom of a deeper malaise.

In a sharply worded order, the bench articulated its prima facie view that the local police were deliberately stalling the process, potentially at the behest of the accused Head Constable. The Court remarked:

"Prima facie it appears that the petitioner exercises considerable influence over the investigating authorities and the police authorities are apparently covering up for the same by failing to provide the requisite instructions to the Government Advocate."

This observation cuts to the heart of the matter—the alleged abuse of authority by a police official to subvert an investigation against himself. The Court's finding suggests a breakdown in the chain of command and a failure of the investigative machinery to act impartially.

Judicial Intervention and Escalation

Finding the local police's conduct and the state's non-cooperation unacceptable, the High Court escalated its oversight significantly. The bench issued a two-pronged directive aimed at wresting control of the probe from those who appeared to be compromising it:

• Personal Monitoring by the ADG: The Court directed the Additional Director General of Police, Varanasi, to personally monitor the investigation on a regular basis. This measure is intended to ensure that the probe is conducted fairly, expeditiously, and without any external influence.
• Summons and Personal Affidavit: The ADG has been ordered to appear in person before the Court on the next hearing date, December 10. He must also file a personal affidavit detailing the steps taken and the progress made in the investigation since the Court's order.

This direct summons of a Zonal ADG is a clear signal from the judiciary that it will not hesitate to hold the highest levels of the police administration accountable for the actions, or inactions, of their subordinates.

Revocation of Interim Protection

In another critical development, the bench vacated the interim protection against arrest that it had granted to the petitioners on September 25. The Court reasoned that the continuation of such protection was proving detrimental to the investigation.

The bench explicitly stated that allowing the stay on arrest to continue "would hamper the ongoing investigation." This decision reflects a judicial principle where protective orders, granted to safeguard individual liberty, can be withdrawn if they are perceived to be misused or if they obstruct the course of justice. By lifting the protection, the Court has empowered the investigating agency—now under the ADG's direct supervision—to take all necessary legal steps, including custodial interrogation if required, to conduct a thorough and effective probe.

Legal Implications and Broader Significance

This case serves as a powerful case study on the exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Courts to supervise criminal investigations under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court's intervention addresses several critical themes:

• Police Accountability: It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, including police officers. The judiciary's willingness to step in when the "protectors" are accused of becoming "perpetrators" is a cornerstone of the rule of law.
• Combating Systemic Influence: The Court's explicit recognition of the accused's "considerable influence" is a candid acknowledgment of the real-world challenges that can derail justice. By elevating oversight to the ADG level, the Court is attempting to neutralize this influence.
• The Power of Judicial Scrutiny: The proceedings demonstrate that judicial scrutiny is a vital check on the executive and law enforcement branches. The simple act of requiring a senior officer to file a personal affidavit and appear in court can inject a sense of urgency and impartiality into a stalled investigation.
• Balancing Rights and Investigation: The decision to vacate the stay on arrest illustrates the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring the efficacy of the criminal investigation. When evidence suggests that protection is hindering the probe, the scales tip in favor of the latter.

As the ADG of Varanasi prepares to appear before the Allahabad High Court, the legal and law enforcement communities will be watching closely. The outcome of this high-stakes monitoring will not only determine the fate of the extortion case but also send a resounding message about accountability, influence, and the judiciary's unwavering commitment to upholding justice.