A case diary entry dated April 16, 2026, which the Allahabad High Court said “records the complicity of the police authorities in the looting”, has led the Court to summon the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, in the Kanpur Hotel Looting case. The Bench found prima facie involvement of senior police personnel and called the investigation deficient; the allegations remain untested.
Prayagraj: The Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, must now appear in person with a personal affidavit before the Allahabad High Court, which found, prima facie, that senior police personnel were involved in the alleged looting and vandalism of Hotel Grand Negi in Kanpur, the Kanpur Hotel Looting case, and that the investigation so far was deficient [Preeti Bajpai v. State of U.P. and 5 Others].
The order of October 24, 2026 was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Preeti Bajpai. The Bench also allowed the petitioner to implead the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, Kapil Dev Singh, as respondent no. 7 and issued notice to him.
The diary entry the Court relied on
The Court relied on a parcha (case diary entry) dated April 16, 2026, appended to the writ petition, which it said “records the complicity of the police authorities in the looting.” The extract, reproduced in Hindi in the order, refers to CCTV and mobile phone footage showing a JCB breaking down the wall of Hotel Grand Negi, a crowd gathering, and persons named in the diary, Vivek Kumar Gupta, Yogesh Singh, Brijesh Singh and Ravikant Bajpai, entering the hotel lawn with associates.
According to the diary entry, the footage also shows doors, windows, almirahs, a television, CCTV cameras and a DVR being broken inside the hotel and goods being carried away, with the incident continuing from about 9 am. The portion emphasised by the Court records that movement of the police administration was also seen at the spot during the incident. The persons named have not been tried, the allegations remain untested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
“Deficient nature of investigation”
The Bench was not satisfied with the affidavit filed on behalf of the investigating officer and held that the probe now needed supervision from the top of the district police:
“The affidavit filed on behalf of the investigating officer is not satisfactory and shows the deficient nature of investigation. In view of the prima facie involvement of senior police personnel in the incident, the investigation warrants direct supervision by the highest police official of the district.”
“Since the matter requires urgent attention at the highest level of the police authorities, the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, shall appear in person on the next date of listing along with a personal affidavit.”
The petition and the earlier Bench
The petition concerns an incident at Hotel Grand Negi in Kanpur in which, according to the petitioner, the hotel was broken into, vandalised and looted. A supplementary affidavit filed on the petitioner’s behalf asserted that a senior police official, ADCP Kapil Dev Singh, “was directly involved in the incident”. These are allegations made by the petitioner, and the officer is yet to respond to the notice now issued to him.
Earlier, a Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena had, on September 9, 2026, asked the State to file a status report within four weeks, failing which the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, was to file a personal affidavit on the progress of the investigation.
Notice, copy to the DGP, and the next date
The Court issued notice to the newly impleaded ADCP, directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, through the Government Advocate, and listed the case on November 26, 2026, among fresh cases.
Why the order matters
When the police are themselves alleged to have taken part in a crime, a routine investigation by subordinate officers can hardly inspire confidence. The order shows how a constitutional court uses its supervisory power to secure a fair investigation, which is part of the guarantee under Article 21, by moving responsibility up the chain of command rather than leaving the probe with officers who may answer to the very persons accused.
By making the Commissioner personally answerable on affidavit and informing the DGP, the Bench has placed the matter at the highest level of the district and State police. The findings are prima facie only, and the role of every person named, including the ADCP, will have to be tested in accordance with law.
Case Title: Preeti Bajpai v. State of U.P. and 5 Others [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18876 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 24, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Ashutosh Mishra, Gyanendra Kumar Yadav and Syed Abid Ali Naqvi
For the Respondents: Anand Prakash Srivastava, Government Advocate, and Rajiv Gaur