The Allahabad high court on Tuesday imposed ₹50,000 in costs on the state government due to police negligence, which delayed the disposal of a bail application by more than ten days after officials failed to provide the information asked by the court.
Event Context
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order in a bail application filed by Yaseen and another accused in a dowry death case. Both accused were the deceased’s in-laws.
The court ordered that the imposed costs would be paid to the applicants. However, the state government was given the liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers after conducting an enquiry.
The court also said that it would be appropriate for the superintendent of police, Bijnor, to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action against the concerned officials.
However, before parting with the matter, the bench took serious note of the conduct of the police officials in handling repeated requests for instructions (information including case diary prepared by IO during investigation) in the matter.
The court said that although the office of the joint director (prosecution), Allahabad HC, 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 a hearing on July 3, 2026, the court directed the prosecution to obtain the PDF of the case diary from the CCTNS portal. Instead of complying, the concerned police officials sent only the applicants’ case history, not the actual case diary. This prompted the court to summon the concerned station house officer (SHO) to appear in person.
Match Outlook
The court on delay caused by police officials observed: “Since the present bail application could have been disposed of on 03.07.2026, but could not be disposed of as, despite repeated reminders and oral intimation, the requisite instructions were not supplied to this court, it remained pending for more than ten days due to the laxity on the part of the police”.
The court allowed the bail plea after finding that there was no sufficient material against the applicants to show that they harassed the victim 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.
On the next hearing, the court examined the personal explanations of the SHO, the sub-inspector, and the circle officer (the designated investigating officer).
The court accepted the SHO’s explanation that he was on leave and handling law-and-order duties for the Kanwar procession.
However, SI Himanshu Panwar blamed a “communication gap” for the failure to send the case history, while the circle officer revealed 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.
