Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application in which the Court noted negligence in the police’s execution of the forensic process, the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., delved into the various reasons for the pendency of criminal cases and issued detailed directions for the police and State functionaries.
Background
As per the prosecution’s story, the deceased had been missing since 16 October 2025, and a missing person report was lodged by the brother of the deceased on the next day. Thereafter, based on the CDR location, the accused was arrested on 19 October 2025, and on his pointing out, the e-rickshaw of the deceased was recovered. Similarly, a blood-stained screwdriver was also recovered and sent for Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) examination, and human blood was found thereon. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present bail application.
The applicant submitted that there was no eye witness of the incident, and he has been falsely implicated merely because of the recovery of the e-rickshaw of the deceased and the blood-stained screwdriver. The State contended that the CDR of the accused’s mobile phone showed that he was near the place of the incident on that day, and it was due to his information that the e-rickshaw, a blood-stained screwdriver, were recovered. This recovery was duly video graphed as per Section 105, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Proceedings before the Court
On 24 April 2026, the Court found that though the blood-stained screwdriver was sent to FSL examination, the investigating officer (IO) did not pose any query as to whether the blood found on the screwdriver belonged to the deceased. Accordingly, the Court directed the Director, FSL, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), to appear and assist the Court.
In pursuance of the order dated 24 April, the FSL Director appeared before the Court and informed that though the DNA profile can be generated within 3 to 4 days if the blood sample is fresh, a DNA profile can also be generated from a disintegrated blood sample, if it is collected carefully and high-end instruments are available in the lab. The FSL Director added that FSLs in U.P. were not only facing a shortage of staff, but also of the latest machines required for forensic and ballistics tests. Though 12 FSLs were functioning in the State, only 8 FSLs had the facility to generate a DNA profile. He also further stated that, as of the date, U.P. FSL was not an autonomous body under the Home Department, but rather it was a part of the police department. Due to this reason, it was not administratively free to procure instruments or appoint staff. Though the Ministry of Home Affairs had sent several letters to the State Government to make the FSL in UP an autonomous body under the Home Department, the process was still ongoing.
Therefore, the Court, vide order dated 29 April 2026, directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P. (ASC), to appear before the Court virtually to assist the Court along with the FSL Director.
In pursuance of the 29 April order dated 29 April 2026, the DGP, ASC, and FSL Director appeared before the Court. The DGP informed the Court of the following:
-
Regarding the IO not asking for DNA matching between the blood found on the weapon and the blood of the deceased, the DGP stated that it was negligence by the IOs, and he will issue appropriate directions regarding seeking a DNA match of the blood found on the cloth or weapon with the blood of the accused and deceased.
-
In pursuance of Rule 8, Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2026, the DGP stated that he will direct all the police officers to record the verified email, messaging application, and mobile number of the accused during the investigation, and the same would be available to the Court through Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) and mentioned in the charge sheet. Additionally, the police were planning to use the Speech-to-Text AI module to record the statements of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS, thereby reducing the time required for manual recording.
-
E-summons received on CCTNS had been executed to the extent of 84 per cent, but when the Court confronted with the data available with the Court that it is less than 50 per cent the DGP assured that he will take steps and issue necessary directions for ensuring all the e-summons or other process sent by the Court on CCTNS would have to be executed, failing which appropriate action would be taken against the concerned police personnel as required under Rule 31(1), U.P. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 (BNSS Rules, 2024).
-
District court judges were still hesitant to issue e-summons or e-warrants, though the chances of their execution were higher than the physical mode.
-
The process to fill the vacancies in FSL had been initiated so that FSL reports could be provided to the Court at the earliest.
-
In pursuance of Rule 21, BNSS Rules, 2024, whenever information is received regarding any offence punishable for 7 years or more, police officers trained in forensic science are sent to collect forensic evidence until the regular team of forensic experts joins the police department.
-
A batch of 350 police officers had been trained by Uttar Pradesh State Institute of Forensic Science(UPSIFS), and as of date, the second batch was undergoing training. As soon as these persons are trained, blood samples and other forensic samples will be collected more scientifically.
The ASC apprised the Court that in pursuance of several letters of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the DGP had recommended to make the FSL a separate department under the Home Ministry, and that was pending before the State Government for final approval.
The FSL Director assured the Court that he and the DGP will try to implement the Court’s suggestion of training police officers about basic blood sample collection due to the limited capacity of UPSIFS.
Reasons for Pendency of Cases
Upon perusal of a comprehensive study from several district courts based on the feedback of District Judges and other judicial officers of 9 districts, the Court found the following reasons responsible for heavy pendency:
-
Pendency at preliminary stages due to non-appearance of the accused.
-
Shortage of Human Resources:
-
Acute shortage of ministerial staff (clerks, stenographers, readers, deposition writers). In some courts, a single clerk handles thousands of files.
-
Lack of trained and computer-proficient staff.
-
Shortage of Prosecuting Officers/ADGC’s affecting the recording of evidence.
-
Shortage of process servers.
-
-
Non-Execution of Court Processes:
-
Delay or non-compliance in execution of summons, warrants, and other processes by police.
-
Evasive and incomplete reports submitted by police authorities.
-
Lack of accountability and monitoring mechanisms.
-
Inefficient process transmission system (dependence on limited staff, like pairvi personnel).
-
Difficulties in inter-district and inter-State service of court processes.
-
Limited use of electronic modes for service of court processes.
-
-
Witness and Accused-Related Issues:
-
Non-appearance of witnesses, particularly doctors and police witnesses, due to transfer or lack of permission.
-
Witnesses become disinterested due to repeated adjournments.
-
Accused persons abscond or remain untraceable.
-
Delay in securing the presence of parties due to outdated or unavailable contact details.
-
-
Inadequate Judicial Infrastructure:
-
Insufficient number of functional courts compared to sanctioned strength.
-
Large number of vacancies in judicial posts.
-
Excessive daily cause lists (often 100—150 cases per day) which limit effective hearings.
-
Inadequate digital infrastructure and case-tracking systems.
-
-
Investigation and Evidence-Related Delays:
-
Delay in police investigation and filing of charge-sheets.
-
Late receipt of forensic (FSL) reports.
-
Non-production of case property or muddamal.
-
Delay in submission of case diaries and records.
-
Inadequate compliance with legal requirements for electronic evidence (e.g., Section 65-B, Evidence Act, 1872, certification).
-
Limited use of technology (like speech-to-text AI module) in recording and presenting evidence.
-
-
Frequent Adjournments and Bar-Related Issues:
-
Repeated adjournments sought by advocates on personal or professional grounds.
-
Clash of dates and non-appearance of counsel.
-
Prolonged and irrelevant cross-examinations and arguments by advocates.
-
Incomplete documentation leading to repeated adjournments.
-
Dilatory tactics and lack of preparedness of advocates.
-
Apprehension of complaints against judicial officers which affects expeditious disposal.
-
-
Docket Explosion and Rising Caseload:
-
Continuous high amount of institution of cases which exceeds disposal rates.
-
Even disposed matters generate miscellaneous and appellate proceedings, increasing the overall burden.
-
-
Underutilisation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods like mediation, Lok Adalat, and arbitration, and failure to divert appropriate cases from regular court processes.
-
Procedural Delays and Complexities:
-
Delay in committal proceedings, especially in cases with multiple accused persons.
-
Complex and time-consuming procedural stages like evidence, cross-examination, arguments.
-
Absence of strict timelines for completion of stages.
-
Frequent filing of interlocutory and miscellaneous applications.
-
Restoration applications and repeated re-litigation cause duplication of proceedings.
-
-
Administrative and File Management Issues:
-
Poor file management, indexing, and tracking due to staff shortage.
-
Missing or incomplete records, especially in transferred cases.
-
Delay in issuance of orders, notices, and communications.
-
-
Institutional and Coordination Gaps:
-
Lack of effective coordination between the judiciary, police, and prosecution.
-
Non-availability or delayed participation of prosecution officers.
-
Inefficient response from monitoring committees and administrative authorities.
-
Non-participation of District Magistrate, Police Commissioner/SSP/SP in monitoring cell meetings chaired by District Judges, instead they send their representatives despite repeated government orders mandating their personal presence in the meetings.
-
-
Pendency of Old Cases:
-
Cases pending for long durations (5+ years) are not consistently prioritised.
-
Repeated adjournments and restoration applications prolong old matters.
-
-
External and Practical Constraints:
-
Parties and witnesses relocate or become untraceable over time.
-
Heavy workload of police authorities cited for non-compliance.
-
Influence of parties affects enforcement in some cases.
-
Lack of dedicated infrastructure like counselling spaces and storage facilities like malkhanas.
-
Analysis
A. Reasons for Pendency:
Noting the non-attendance of police officials in monitoring cell meetings, the Court directed that all District Police Chiefs, including the Commissioner of Police, should personally attend the monitoring cell meeting under the Chairmanship of the concerned District Judge, so that issues regarding the non-execution of court processes and faulty police investigations can be discussed and brought to the attention of the District Police Chiefs.
“This [non-attendance] is not only against several government orders and High Court’s circulars, but also a disrespect to the District Judge, who is equivalent to the State Government’s Principal Secretary. The Commissioner of Police and the Divisional Commissioner are much lower in rank and protocol than a District Judge.”
The Court stated that the primary reasons for delay seemed to be the non-appearance of police witnesses and non-execution of court processes. In this regard, the Court took note of the DGP’s information that he had directed all subordinate police officers to immediately execute court processes received electronically on CCTNS without fail, and his assurance to the Court that he would issue proper directions to ensure the presence of police witnesses before the concerned courts.
Regarding the lack of ministerial staff, the Court noted that though the Court had requested more staff, the State had yet to sanction it. Thus, the main reason for pendency in district courts was not the capability of judicial officers but the shortage of staff.
“It is the State Government as well as Police who are mainly responsible for pendency of criminal cases in district courts, even then the district judiciary is blamed by social media and common persons for non-disposal of their cases.”
B. Consequences of Pendency:
The Court added that many criminals took advantage of the pendency of criminal cases by repeating the offences without any fear, and many of them also became MLAs, MPs, and Ministers. In this regard, the Court referred to the Association for Democratic Reform’s report, which stated that as of the date, 49 per cent of Ministers in the U.P. Government were involved in criminal cases, of which 44 per cent were involved in serious criminal cases. Therefore, if sufficient staff and proper cooperation of police were provided to the district judiciary, then the disposal of criminal cases would become faster, such persons would be behind bars, and people with no antecedents would come forward to become MLA, MP, or Minister.
“An independent, fair, and transparent judicial system is the backbone of a mature democracy, and a judicial system that itself depends on the mercy of the State Government for sufficient staff and execution of court process will become like a government department struggling for basic needs and infrastructures.”
The Court further stated that many young judicial officers, who joined the judiciary to dispense justice, found themselves unable to perform because of insufficient staff, non-cooperation by the police in the execution of court processes, faulty investigation, and improper FSL reports. Consequently, they became frustrated and sought the High Court’s help for remedial measures, but the High Court cannot do anything as it is the State Government that must provide basic infrastructure, staff, FSL reports, and police cooperation.
Additionally, the Court stated that in U.P., the personal security of judicial officers of district courts was a major concern. On many occasions, criminals gave open threats to judicial officers even in the courts during their convictions. Sometimes, when judicial officers visit the marketplace or the public place outside the Court, they are indirectly intimidated, though veiled threats or otherwise, by the criminals. Judicial officers, in the absence of a personal security officer (PSO), used to ignore it to avoid conflict and prevent being highlighted in the media. This also affects the judicial function of district court judges, especially the issuance of conviction orders against hardcore criminals.
The Court also highlighted that in U.P., except for the District Judge, the first Additional District Judge, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, PSOs are not provided to other judicial officers, unlike Punjab and Haryana, where all judicial officers are provided PSOs.
The Court mentioned a dialogue from the film “Damini”
“Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh Milti Rahi hai….. lekin Insaf Nahi Mila My Lord, Insaf Nahi Mila! Mili Hai to Sirf Tarikh”.
The Court remarked that this dialogue became very popular because it was the perception of a common man, but the reason for it, of course, was not the judicial officers alone, but the State and its police, as a judicial officer can’t decide the cases without sufficient staff and the cooperation of the police.
C. Existing Legal Framework:
Thereafter, the Court referred to the existing legal framework, such as the provisions of BNSS, which were incorporated to expedite the court proceedings through digitalisation and the use of electronic communication. For example, after completion of the investigation, the police report can be sent to the Magistrate concerned electronically under Section 193(3)(1) BNSS, and the Magistrate is authorised to take cognizance upon a charge sheet received electronically as per Section 210(1)(b) BNSS.
The Court also noted that Rule 31, BNSS Rules, 2024, provides for service of summons through email, N-STEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes), and other electronic means.
Furthermore, the Court referred to the U.P. Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2026 (E-Processes Rules), which mandate the court to generate and issue process, summons, warrants, and other coercive processes, and serve them through a court officer. These Rules provide that all e-summons can be directly sent to the accused or witnesses if the court has their electronic address/contact; otherwise, they will be sent to the police through CCTNS, which shall be further served by the police. E-Processes Rules also provide for verifying details like electronic email, address, phone number, messaging applications (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, etc.) of the accused or witnesses during investigation or inquiry, so that the same can be used by the court for sending summons.
Directions
After considering the suggestions of the DGP and the FSL Director, the Court summarised its directions as follows:
-
The State Government shall consider the issue of providing additional staff and infrastructure to the District Courts, considering the heavy workload of cases.
-
The State Government shall consider making U.P. FSL an autonomous department under its Home Ministry as requested by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
-
The State Government shall endeavour to fill up vacancies in Forensic Science Laboratories of U.P., along with providing high-end instruments within one year.
-
The State Government/Police Department shall ensure training of police officers for the collection of forensic evidence.
-
The State Government shall also consider the feasibility of providing PSOs to all District Court Judges like in Punjab and Haryana.
-
The DGP shall issue directions to all District Police Chiefs, including the Commissioner of Police, to attend the monthly monitoring cell meetings under the chairmanship of the District Judge concerned personally.
-
The DGP shall issue directions to all investigating officers to make a query from FSLs regarding the matching of the DNA of blood found on the blood-stained weapon and cloth with the DNA of the accused and deceased, while sending the blood samples for FSLs.
-
The DGP shall issue necessary directions to all the police officers involved in the investigation to record the verified email, messaging applications (WhatsApp, Telegram and Facebook Messenger, etc.), and the mobile number of the accused and witnesses during the investigation and mention these verified details in the chargesheet apart from entering them in CCTNS as per Rule 8, E-Processes Rules.
-
The police shall implement as soon as possible, using the Speech-to-Text AI module to record the statement of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS.
-
The DGP shall also consider issuing a circular to all police officers, mentioning that negligence in execution of court processes may attract disciplinary proceedings as required by Rule 31(1), BNSS Rules, 2024.
-
Judicial officers shall send e-summons, e-warrants and other court processes as per BNSS Rules, 2024 and the E-Processes Rules, and also receive e-FIR and e-chargesheet as per BNSS.
Decision
Considering the submissions, the last location of the accused as per CDR, the recovery of a blood-stained screw driver, which substantiates the injury found in the post-mortem report of the deceased, and the recovery of the e-rickshaw, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application.
Thereafter, the Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary (Law) of U.P., DGP, ASC, and the Director of Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow (JTRI). The Principal Secretary (Law) shall place this order before the Chief Minister of U.P. along with its summary for his perusal. Additionally, the Director of JTRI shall sensitise the Judicial Officers about relevant Rules of the BNSS Rules, 2024, and the E-Processes Rules regarding the generation and electronic transmission of E-summons, E-warrants, and other court processes.
[Mevalal Prajapati v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11476 of 2026, decided on 7-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Dinesh Mishra
For the respondent: Government Advocate Roshan Kumar Singh