Allahabad High Court of UP has adopted a strict stance on the leniency being shown in criminal action against police officers. The court has asked the Director General of Police (DGP) to appoint a senior officer to find out how many police officers are being prosecuted in the state and submit a complete report on the next date. The next hearing will be on January 10, 2024. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh has given this order while hearing the petition filed by Rupesh Kumar Singh of Jaunpur demanding quashing of the criminal action. The court has asked the DGP to file an affidavit bringing on record the district-wise list of such police officers who are involved in any criminal case. Summons, bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants have been issued against them but those summons/warrants have not been served on time and the trial proceedings are getting delayed.
Not appearing even after warrant is issued
Let us tell you that the court has also directed the Registrar to comply with the order. The court has said that the order passed in this case and information about previously passed orders should be provided to the DGP within 48 hours. Before this, while hearing the petition, the court expressed dissatisfaction over the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur against the guilty police officers. The court said that such cases are often coming to light, in which police officers are accused in criminal cases and the process of repeatedly issuing summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants against them is going on. But, they are not responding to the concerned court. The court fails to understand why the process of summons or warrants issued against such police officers is not being delivered on time. Whereas, they are discharging their official duties. Are receiving salary.
This is the whole matter
In fact, an FIR was lodged at the Kotwali police station of Jaunpur on 10 September 2010 by the Anti-Corruption Organization, Varanasi, against four policemen including the petitioner Rupesh Kumar Singh in an incident of 28 June 2008. On October 3, 2017, charge sheet was filed against Sub-Inspector Rupesh Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector Shiv Shankar Singh, Constable Pundev Singh. The trial court issued summons, bailable warrant and then non-bailable warrant for his appearance but the petitioner did not appear. He challenged the criminal action. In the earlier hearing, the court had asked the Jaunpur Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit. The Superintendent filed an affidavit but the court was not satisfied with it.
Big relief to Afzal Ansari’s wife from High Court
Farhat, wife of mafia Mukhtar Ansari’s brother and former BSP MP Afzal, has got a big relief from Allahabad High Court. The court has directed to allow running of sealed petrol pumps under the Gangster Act. Also said that a separate account of this should be kept, which should be presented in the court. The court said that the DM does not have the legal right to seal the petrol pump without appointing an administrator. Under the Gangster Act, the petitioner has been directed to operate the petrol pump until an administrator is appointed. The petitioner has been given the liberty to file his objection in the court on the application filed under Section 16. The court said that DM Ghazipur can attach the property, but cannot seal it without appointing an administrator.
The division bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice SAH Rizvi has given this order while disposing of the petition of Farhat Ansari. Advocate Upendra Upadhyay argued the petition. They say that the petitioner has set up a petrol pump with his own earnings in 2019. The allegation that the pump was installed from a gangster’s property is false. The petitioner has also filed income tax return. Additional Advocate General said that the property has been attached and referred to the Gangster Court and the petitioner has not presented any objection. The petitioner should have raised objection before the DM. The seized property has been referred to the court, from where it can be released. On this, the court said that DM can confiscate the property, but does not have the right to seize it.