“There is something more than meets the eye!!” With that remark, the Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police over a charge-sheet pending for a year without being filed in court, and has directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain the delay on a personal affidavit.
Uttar Pradesh: A charge-sheet drawn up but not submitted to the competent court nearly a year later has drawn a rebuke for the Uttar Pradesh Police from the Allahabad High Court. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, has been directed to file a personal affidavit explaining the delay and the remedial or punitive action proposed in such cases [Petitioner v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Rajeev Bharti, sitting as a Division Bench, passed the order last week on a writ petition seeking a direction to the police to file the charge-sheet in an FIR registered under provisions relating to criminal intimidation and the publication or transmission of obscene material. The matter will next be heard on November 19, 2026.
An affidavit in three weeks, or an appearance in person
The Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit within three weeks explaining why the charge-sheet had not been sent to the concerned court, why it was repeatedly moving between the supervisory authority and the investigating officer, and what remedial or punitive action would be taken in such matters. If the affidavit is not filed, the officer must appear in person with the records to assist the Court. The Bench also expressed the expectation that the police report in this case would be filed expeditiously.
The allegations in the FIR remain untested. The High Court has expressed no view on the merits of the criminal case, and the presumption of innocence applies to every person named in it.
What the petitioner and the State told the Bench
The petitioner told the Court that although the State had stated before the High Court on August 25, 2026 that the charge-sheet had been forwarded and was likely to be filed, it had still not been submitted before the concerned court.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, informed the Bench that a charge-sheet dated October 26, 2025 had been sent to the Circle Officer on December 20, 2025. The Assistant Prosecution Officer then raised objections on January 13, 2026, after which the matter was sent back for further investigation. The State said an effort would be made to file the charge-sheet before the concerned court expeditiously.
Instructions that did not match the earlier order
The Bench found that these instructions ran contrary to what had been recorded in its earlier order of August 25, 2026. It noted that the remand for further investigation after the prosecution officer’s objections had not even been disclosed to the State counsel when instructions were given at the earlier hearing.
“Once the highest Court of the State, i.e. the High Court, was seized of the matter, it was expected that the authorities would come with complete instructions in the matter and there would not be any occasion for concealment of facts.”
The Court said that although the authorities claimed the charge-sheet had been drawn up, it had not been finalised for submission despite the lapse of almost a year.
“There cannot be any occasion for the authorities to sit over the matter for a period of almost one year, as has been done in the instant case.”
Section 177 BNSS and the “without delay” mandate
Referring to Section 177 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bench observed that while the provision sets no fixed time limit for submitting the police report, it expressly requires the report to be sent to the Magistrate “without delay”.
The Bench said it frequently comes across cases where the authorities tell it that charge-sheets have been drawn up and sent to supervisory officers, but they are never then filed in court. Authorities could not sit on a charge-sheet after drawing it up, it said, while litigants withdrew their writ petitions on the strength of instructions that the charge-sheet had been forwarded. It added that the State Government should frame rules or guidelines prescribing a time frame for submitting a charge-sheet to the court once it is drawn up.
“There is something more than meets the eye!!”
What the order changes
The order turns the statutory words “without delay” in Section 177 BNSS into a working standard of accountability. A charge-sheet that sits in the files of a supervising officer for months does not reach the Magistrate, cognizance cannot be taken, and both the complainant and the accused are left in limbo.
By calling for a personal affidavit from the State’s senior-most Home Department officer and suggesting rules on a fixed timeline, the Bench has moved the issue from one stalled FIR to a systemic gap in police practice in Uttar Pradesh. It also signals that instructions given to the High Court must be complete and accurate.
Case Title: Petitioner v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (writ petition)
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Rajeev Bharti, Allahabad High Court
Order: October 2026; next date of hearing November 19, 2026
Appearances: Additional Government Advocate for the State