The Allahabad High Court dismissed murder accused Mevalal Prajapati’s bail plea while strongly criticising rising criminal case pendency in Uttar Pradesh district courts, holding the State government and police authorities largely responsible for prolonged judicial delays in criminal proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the bail application of a murder accused, made severe remarks about the growing pendency of criminal cases in district courts across Uttar Pradesh. It further held the State government and police authorities largely responsible for the delays.
The order was passed by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal in a bail application filed by Mevalal Prajapati, connected to a murder case registered in Fatehpur district.
Although the proceedings started with the assessment of the merits of the bail plea, the Court’s inquiry gradually broadened to examine shortcomings in forensic investigation, absence of adequate infrastructure, and wider systemic problems impacting criminal trials in Uttar Pradesh.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Raises “Serious Concern” Over Huge Delays in Criminal Trials in Maharashtra
During the hearing, the Court noted that a blood-stained screwdriver allegedly linked to the offence had been recovered and sent for forensic examination. However, it observed that the investigating officer did not take steps to obtain DNA matching to determine whether the blood on the weapon belonged to the deceased.
Taking this lapse seriously, the Court directed the Director of the Uttar Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to appear before it. The FSL Director told the Court that forensic laboratories in the State were facing acute shortages of both staff and modern scientific equipment.
The officer further stated that although 12 forensic laboratories were operating in Uttar Pradesh, only eight had the capability to generate DNA profiles. The Court was also informed that the FSL continued to function under the police department rather than as an autonomous institution under the Home Department, which, according to the submissions, limited its administrative independence in matters such as appointments, procurement, and infrastructure expansion.
In light of these disclosures, the Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and the State Home Secretary to assist during the proceedings. During the hearing, the DGP reportedly acknowledged negligence on the part of investigating officers for not seeking DNA analysis, and assured the Court that suitable instructions would be issued to police personnel.
The judgment then developed into a detailed review of the causes behind mounting pendency of criminal cases in district courts across Uttar Pradesh. Relying on inputs collected from judicial officers and district judges in districts including Ghaziabad, Agra, Mathura and Moradabad, the Court pointed out multiple structural deficiencies affecting the criminal justice system.
The Court highlighted, among other issues, shortages of clerical staff, stenographers and deposition writers in district courts, repeated failures by police authorities to serve summons and warrants, delays in obtaining forensic reports, an inadequate number of prosecutors, non-appearance of witnesses, and frequent adjournments requested by advocates.
One of the most forceful observations in the decision was the Court’s remark that trial courts were being unfairly blamed for delays, even though they function without adequate manpower and institutional backing.
The Bench observed,
“It is the State Government as well as Police who are mainly responsible for pendency of criminal cases in district courts,”
The Court also expressed concern about the safety of judicial officers in the State. It noted that judges were sometimes openly threatened by criminals after convictions, and that, aside from district judges, first additional district judges and chief judicial magistrates, most judicial officers were not provided personal security officers.
Referring to the well-known courtroom dialogue from the Hindi film Damini “Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh Milti Rahi hai….. lekin Insaf Nahi Mila My Lord, Insaf Nahi Mila ! Mili Hai to Sirf Tarihk” the Court observed that the widespread belief of endless adjournments was not attributable solely to judicial officers. Instead, it stated that delays were largely driven by insufficient staffing, lack of police coordination, and faulty investigations.
The Court said,
“A judicial officer can’t decide the cases without sufficient staff and the cooperation of police to ensure the presence of the accused, witnesses and a proper FSL report, etc.,”
After identifying these systemic shortcomings, the High Court issued multiple directions to the State government and police authorities. These included filling vacancies in forensic laboratories within one year, considering autonomy for the forensic department, ensuring proper training of police personnel on the collection and preservation of forensic evidence, and improving the execution of electronic summons and warrants under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Notwithstanding these broader institutional observations, the Court ultimately rejected Mevalal Prajapati’s bail plea on merits. The Bench relied on factors such as mobile phone location evidence, the recovery of the deceased’s e-rickshaw, and the seizure of the blood-stained screwdriver allegedly connected with the offence.
Case Title: Mevalal Prajapati vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES