Eight months after a further probe was ordered in a Sultanpur murder case, it remains incomplete, and the Allahabad High Court has flagged Police Lethargy In Investigations across Uttar Pradesh, asking the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) for a personal affidavit within three weeks.
Lucknow: The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, must say on affidavit whether a time frame can be fixed for completing police investigations and, if not, how the “malady” of investigations kept pending for years is to be remedied, the Allahabad High Court has directed [Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava at the Lucknow Bench passed the order on November 3, 2026, on a criminal writ petition by Deepak Kumar seeking transfer of the investigation to the CB-CID or a court-monitored Special Investigation Team.
The statutory duty to finish a probe
The Bench examined Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 193(2) sets a two-month limit only for investigations into specified sexual offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act, and no fixed period applies to other offences. Section 193(1), however, requires that every investigation “shall be completed without unnecessary delay”.
The Court also pointed to the duty under Section 193(3) to inform the informant or victim of the progress of the investigation within 90 days and to communicate the action taken, and to Rule 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, under which that information is to go by SMS, email, other electronic means or post.
“The intention of the legislature was that the investigation should not keep hanging fire and the complainant made to run from pillar to post without any information also being given to him with regard to the progress of the investigation which is being conducted by the Investigating Officer.”
The Sultanpur murder case
FIR No. 309 of 2024 was registered on November 24, 2024, at Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, under Sections 103 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A chargesheet was filed on April 21, 2025.
On February 21, 2026, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, found the investigation improper and directed further investigation by the concerned Circle Officer or any other Circle Officer. The petitioner alleged that the matter had since been “hanging fire” with no report placed before the court.
On instructions from Sub-Inspector Prem Narayan Rajput of Police Station Jaisinghpur dated October 31, 2026, the Additional Government Advocate admitted that the chargesheet had been filed and said the matter was still under further investigation.
“Total lethargy and inaction”
The Bench said it was not clear whether any progress information had been sent to the petitioner, and that more than eight months had passed since the further investigation was ordered. It added that the Court is repeatedly approached by complainants seeking effective probes in FIRs where investigations go on for months, if not years.
“Considering the aforesaid, it is, thus, apparent that there is total lethargy and inaction on the part of the Investigating Officers in completing the investigation subsequent to lodging of FIRs. The problem is not only confined to one district rather it appears to be prevailing throughout the State of U.P. However, this may not be taken as if we have given final opinion with regard to the malady.”
“…it is high time that the higher authorities should step in and frame modalities pertaining to the time frame in which an endeavour should be made to complete the investigation, including punitive action to be taken against the Investigating Officers who do not complete the investigation within a specified time.”
What the Additional Chief Secretary has been asked
The affidavit is to be filed within three weeks. It must indicate whether a time frame for completing investigations can be fixed and, if not, how the problem is to be addressed. It must also state the number of cases in which progress information has been sent to complainants or victims under Section 193, confined for now to FIRs lodged in District Sultanpur.
Should the affidavit not be filed, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) must appear in person with the records to assist the Court. No notice was issued to the private respondents at this stage, and the matter is listed on December 8, 2026. The allegations in the FIR remain to be tested, and the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence; the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case.
Why the order matters
Outside a narrow band of sexual offences, the BNSS sets no outer limit for a police investigation, but it does require that every probe be completed without unnecessary delay and that complainants be kept informed. The order reads those duties together and treats an unexplained eight-month delay in a court-ordered further investigation as a symptom of a wider problem, not a one-off lapse.
By asking the State’s senior-most Home official to propose a time frame and to report compliance with the progress-information duty, the High Court has moved from case-by-case orders to a systemic inquiry. The answer could shape how Investigating Officers across Uttar Pradesh are held to account for stalled cases.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10849 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Shesh Ram Verma for the petitioner; Additional Government Advocate for the State