Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by a Mahant, accused of recording of video of females while they were bathing, Vikram D. Chauhan, J. noting that the counter affidavit is silent on the nature of material collected during investigation, directed an inquiry indicating the negligence or lapses being made by the police department, office of director of prosecution and office of Government Advocate in disclosing key evidence against the accused.
The Court noted that a counter affidavit dated 15-7-2024 was filed by the State which did not disclose any evidence or material particulars found during investigation against the accused applicant even though this Court by order dated 5-7-2024 directed the filing of counter affidavit disclosing the evidence found during investigation against the accused.
The Court said it is strange that the informant knows the material found during investigation against the accused, but the counter affidavit is silent on the nature of material collected during investigation.
The Court remarked that it is not known as to how the communication of National Commission for Women is an evidence against the accused and why the relevant evidence was suppressed by the State authorities at the time of filing of the counter affidavit dated 15-7-2024.
The Court said that the counter affidavit was filed casually, ignoring the order dated 5-7-2024. The Court further remarked that the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police today disclosed various stages of investigation and what was found during the investigation. It is not known as to why previously the aforesaid facts have not been disclosed before the Court, despite a specific order.
The Court noted that after the order was passed by this Court inviting counter affidavit by disclosing evidence found against the accused, the police prepared the instructions and the same was being sent through office of Director of Prosecution to the office of the Government Advocate. The Court said there are three levels of checking out if the instructions have been properly prepared. The first level is the police department itself. The second level is Director of Prosecution, and the third level is the office of the Government Advocate. Neither the three levels have taken pain at the time of filing of previous counter affidavit to comply with the order of the Court even though there are serious allegation against the accused and the matter was required to be taken up by the authorities concerned.
The Court said the office of Director of Prosecution cannot act like a post office; they must examine instructions to find out if the necessary averments have been stated and evidence has been enclosed along with the affidavit as required. Even the police department has a duty to fairly disclose all the material while filing the affidavit.
The Court said that non-disclosure of material evidence from the Court is an interference in the dispensation of justice. No Officer of the State can be permitted to file an affidavit concealing material particulars and facts, which were relevant for adjudication of the dispute pending before this Court. More particularly, when the question of liberty of an individual is involved. The non-disclosure of material facts and evidence is indicative that the police department is not interested in bringing home justice to the victim or the accused.
Thus, the Court concluded that by not disclosing the material particular and evidence fairly in the earlier counter affidavit by the police department and non-examination of the earlier counter affidavit by the office of Director of Prosecution and the office of the Government Advocate is indicative of the negligence or laches.
Thus, the Court directed an inquiry to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to be nominated by Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. While holding the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer was directed to examine certain facts.
The Court directed the Inquiry Officer to examine the person who had drafted the counter affidavit and disclose his name. Further, the officer was also directed to examine the person who had assigned the work of drafting the counter affidavit and whether the person assigning the work of drafting the counter affidavit has examined that all material particulars and evidence has been received from the police department.
The Court also ordered detailed enquiry to be made by the Inquiry Officer indicating the negligence or lapses being made by the police department, office of director of prosecution and office of Government Advocate.
The State Government was directed to file an affidavit to show the steps taken by the State for ensuring that no suppression of facts, particulars and evidence is made by any government department in future and that the office of the Government Advocate functions in professional manner.
The inquiry report was directed to be submitted in sealed cover on the next date of hearing. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad was directed to complete the inquiry pending against the accused of the earlier counter affidavit forthwith and submit an affidavit in this respect.
The matter will next be taken up on 12-09-2024.
[Mukesh Giri v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4366, Decided on: 23-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant : Sudhanshu Kumar,Swapnil Kumar,Uttar Kumar Goswami,Vijay Pratap
Counsel for Opposite Party : Deepak Rana,G.A.,Noor Saba Begum
