Allahabad High Court Flags Police Inaction As Major Causes For Pendency Of Criminal Cases; Issues Directions For Reforms

The Court issued a detailed set of directions to the State Government, Director General of Police and judicial officers concerning implementation of electronic processes under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, strengthening of forensic infrastructure, police accountability and protection of judicial officers.

The Court was hearing a bail application in a murder case where questions arose regarding the forensic examination of a blood-stained screwdriver allegedly recovered from the accused. During the hearing, the Court undertook a broader examination of systemic deficiencies affecting criminal trials in district courts across Uttar Pradesh, including police non-cooperation, delay in execution of summons and warrants, shortage of staff and delays in forensic investigations.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while observing that “the primary reasons for pendency of criminal cases in district courts are non-execution of process of court as well as non-appearance of police witnesses”, further added that “it is the State Government as well as Police who are mainly responsible for pendency of criminal cases in district courts even then district judiciary is blamed by the social media and other common persons for non-disposal of their cases”.

Advocate Dinesh Mishra appeared for the applicant. Roshan Kumar Singh, A.G.A., appeared for the State.

Background

The bail application arose from a prosecution case registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging murder and related offences. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested based on mobile location data and the recovery of an e-rickshaw and a blood-stained screwdriver allegedly connected with the offence.

During earlier hearings, the Court noticed that although the blood-stained screwdriver had been sent for forensic examination, the Investigating Officer had not sought any query regarding the matching of the blood found on the weapon with the DNA of the deceased.

Consequently, the Court directed the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, to appear before the Court and assist regarding forensic infrastructure and investigative practices.

The Director, FSL, informed the Court that forensic laboratories in Uttar Pradesh were facing an acute shortage of staff and a lack of modern scientific instruments. It was further stated that only 8 out of 12 forensic laboratories in the State possessed DNA profiling facilities.

The Director also apprised the Court that the Uttar Pradesh FSL was not an autonomous body under the Home Department and remained part of the police department, thereby affecting its administrative independence and ability to procure equipment or appoint personnel.

Thereafter, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and the Secretary (Home) to appear and assist the Court regarding the implementation of digital criminal procedure mechanisms under the BNSS and systemic delays in criminal trials.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook what it termed a “comprehensive study” based on feedback received from district courts across multiple districts regarding causes of criminal case pendency.

The Court identified several structural reasons behind mounting pendency, including shortage of clerks, stenographers, deposition writers and process servers, inadequate digital infrastructure, non-execution of summons and warrants by police, delay in filing charge sheets, delayed FSL reports and repeated adjournments.

The Bench observed that district courts were often functioning with excessive daily cause lists ranging between 100 and 150 cases per day, making effective hearings difficult. The Court also recorded that the non-appearance of police witnesses and doctors due to transfers and administrative delays was significantly hampering criminal trials.

The Court expressed serious concern regarding the lack of effective monitoring systems within the police department for the execution of court processes. The Bench observed that Commissioners of Police and senior district police officers routinely deputed representatives instead of personally attending monitoring cell meetings chaired by District Judges.

The Court observed: “… that there is no effective monitoring system for the execution of the courts' processes by the police department and also non-participation of the District Police Chiefs themself personally in the monthly monitoring cell meeting under the Chairmanship of the concerned District Judge, especially the Commissioners of Police, because they send their representatives. This is not only against several government orders and the 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 noted that the Director General of Police assured the Court that directions would be issued to subordinate police officers requiring immediate execution of court processes received electronically through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS).

The Court further observed that despite repeated requests made by the High Court on the administrative side for additional ministerial staff in district courts, no effective steps had been taken by the State Government. The Bench remarked that district judiciary was unfairly blamed by the public and social media for delays, even though the major causes of pendency lay in the shortage of staff, police inaction and delayed forensic reports.

The Court also made observations regarding criminalisation in politics and referred to an Association for Democratic Reforms report stating that 49% of Ministers in the Uttar Pradesh Government were facing criminal cases, while 44% faced serious criminal cases.

The Bench added: “Because of taking advantage of the pendency of criminal cases, many criminals kept on repeating the offences again and again without any fear, and even many of them also became MLAs, MPs, and even Ministers. As per the Association for Democratic Reform's report, as of the date, 49% of Ministers in the U.P. Government are involved in criminal cases, of which 44% are involved in serious criminal cases. Therefore, if sufficient staff and proper cooperation of police are provided to the district judiciary, then the disposal of criminal cases will become fast, and the persons who have been taking advantage of the pendency of criminal cases against them would be behind bars, and the innocent will get a clean chit and the person with clean antecedents will come forward for MLA, MP, or even for ministers”.

The Court additionally expressed concern regarding the personal security of judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh and observed that judicial officers were frequently subjected to open or veiled threats from criminals.

The Court highlighted: “In U.P., the personal security of judicial officers of district courts is also a major concern. On many occasions, criminals gave open threats to judicial officers even in courts during their convictions. Sometimes, when judicial officers visit the marketplace or the public place outside the court, they are indirectly intimidated, though veiled threat or otherwise, by the criminals, but judicial officers, in the absence of a personal security officer (P.S.O.), used to ignore it to avoid conflict and also to save themselves from 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 referred extensively to provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, U.P. BNSS Rules, 2024 and the U.P. Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2026, dealing with electronic filing of charge sheets, electronic summons, electronic warrants and digital service mechanisms through CCTNS and N-STEP systems.

The Bench observed that the legislative intent behind these provisions was to reduce dependence on physical service through police personnel and expedite criminal proceedings through digitalisation.

The Court further noted assurances given by the DGP regarding the use of speech-to-text AI modules for recording witness statements under Section 180 BNSS and training of police personnel in forensic evidence collection. The Bench also recorded that the DGP proposed disciplinary proceedings against police officers for negligence in execution of court processes under Rule 31(1) of the BNSS Rules, 2024.

Referring to public perception regarding judicial delays, the Court quoted the famous dialogue from the film Damini, “Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh”, the Court underscored that “this dialogue became very popular because it was the perception of a common man, but the reason for it, of course, is not the judicial officer alone, but the State and its police, as 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”.

Conclusion

After considering suggestions made by the Director General of Police, the Secretary (Home) and the Director, FSL, the Court issued a detailed set of directions to the State Government, police authorities and judicial officers.

The Court directed the State Government to consider providing additional staff and infrastructure to district courts and to consider making the Uttar Pradesh FSL an autonomous department under the Home Ministry.

The Bench further directed the filling of vacancies in forensic laboratories and the provision of high-end scientific instruments within one year.

The Court also directed the State Government to consider the feasibility of providing personal security officers to all district court judges on the lines of Punjab and Haryana.

The DGP was directed to ensure that all District Police Chiefs, including Commissioners of Police, personally attend monthly monitoring cell meetings chaired by District Judges.

The Court additionally directed issuance of instructions requiring Investigating Officers to seek DNA matching queries from forensic laboratories while sending blood samples and to record verified electronic contact details of the accused and witnesses during investigation in accordance with the E-Processes Rules, 2026.

The Bench also directed implementation of speech-to-text AI modules for recording witness statements and directed judicial officers to utilise e-summons, e-warrants and electronic charge sheets in accordance with the BNSS framework.

On the merits of the bail application, the Court ultimately refused bail to the applicant, considering the recovery of the blood-stained screwdriver, CDR location evidence and recovery of the e-rickshaw allegedly at the instance of the accused.

The Court further directed the Principal Secretary (Law) to place the order along with its summary before the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for perusal.

Cause Title: Mevalal Prajapati v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:105379)

Click here to read/download Judgment