Allahabad HC Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Costs on UP Government After Gorakhpur Police Negligence Delayed Bail Disposal by Over 15 Days

Three Gorakhpur police officers were attached to the police line and the State was directed to pay Rs 1 lakh to the applicant after bail instructions were repeatedly not supplied to court, keeping the accused in jail beyond necessity.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 15 July 2026 granted bail to one Amit, accused in a case registered at Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, while simultaneously imposing costs of Rs 1,00,000 on the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The costs were directed to be paid to the applicant on account of the established negligence of certain police officers at Gorakhpur, which had prevented the bail application from being disposed of on 01.07.2026 and caused the applicant to remain in jail for more than 15 additional days. The court further directed the State Government to recover the amount from the erring officers.

The Bail Application and the Instructions Failure

The applicant Amit had filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22140 of 2026, seeking release during trial in Case Crime No. 131 of 2026. The case was registered under Section 137(2), Section 87, and Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.

When the matter was first heard on 08.07.2026, the Additional Government Advocate sought further time to obtain instructions. The court noted that instructions had not been supplied despite repeated reminders from the office of the Joint Director of Prosecution, High Court, Allahabad. This was not an isolated instance: the court recorded that it had come across a number of cases from Gorakhpur where instructions were not being supplied within time. As a result, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur was directed to appear personally before the court.

SSP Gorakhpur Appears; Negligent Officers Attached to Police Line

In compliance with the order dated 08.07.2026, Dr. Kaustubh, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Gorakhpur appeared before the court on 15 July 2026 and filed a personal affidavit. The affidavit stated that after the SSP's office received intimation from the Joint Director of Prosecution, it forwarded the matter to the concerned police station, yet instructions still were not supplied. An inquiry was conducted, and three officers were found to be negligent: S.H.O. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector Sarvesh Kumar, and Constable Ramesh Yadav, all of Police Station Bansgaon. All three were attached to the police line.

The SSP further stated that through RT messages dated 13.07.2026, he issued directions to the Superintendent of Police (City/North/South/Crime/Traffic/Security), all Circle Officers in Gorakhpur District, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (LIU), and all Station House Officers in the district, apprising them of the DGP circular dated 06.01.2026 and directing compliance in supplying instructions in bail matters. The SSP also expressed an apology to the court and assured that such lapses would not recur. The court recorded that it was satisfied with the explanation provided by the SSP.

Merits of the Bail Application

Turning to the merits, Ms. Swati Tiwari, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the FIR alleged that the applicant had enticed away the daughter of the first informant. However, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 and Section 183 of the BNSS clearly stated that she had left her home of her own accord because she was in a relationship with the applicant. The victim's statement further indicated that the applicant had not committed any wrong against her.

Counsel additionally submitted that the applicant had no criminal history, that a charge sheet had already been filed in the case, and that there was accordingly no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant had been in jail since 20.03.2026. The first informant did not appear before the court despite service of notice through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail prayer but was unable to dispute the facts placed on record. Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, and the complicity of the accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court held that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Costs for Custodial Delay Caused by Police Negligence

The court's finding on costs was direct. From the personal affidavit of the SSP and the inquiry report annexed thereto, the court found it clear that the negligence of the named police officers had prevented the bail application from being disposed of on 01.07.2026. The matter could only be finally disposed of on 15.07.2026. As a consequence, the applicant had remained in jail for more than 15 days solely due to that negligence.

The court imposed costs of Rs 1,00,000 upon the State Government, to be paid to the applicant. The State Government was left at liberty to recover the amount from the erring police officers. A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and to the SSP, Gorakhpur, through the Registrar (Compliance).

Bail Conditions and Directions for Release

The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The standard conditions were imposed: no inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; sincere cooperation in trial without seeking adjournment; no indulgence in criminal activity after release; and attendance in accordance with the conditions of the bond. Any breach was noted as a ground for cancellation of bail.

The court directed verification of identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before bonds are accepted. The applicant was permitted to be released on a computer-generated copy of the order downloaded from the official High Court website, with the undertaking that a certified copy would be filed within 15 days. The trial court was directed to send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS).

The court also directed the office to send a copy of the order to the applicant through the concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on the e-prison portal, and to the trial court via e-mode within 24 hours, in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685, and in Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.

Outcome

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22140 of 2026 was allowed. The applicant Amit was directed to be released on bail subject to the conditions set out above. Costs of Rs 1,00,000 were imposed on the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, payable to the applicant, with the State at liberty to recover the amount from the officers whose negligence was established in the SSP's inquiry. A copy of the order was directed to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, and the SSP, Gorakhpur, through the Registrar (Compliance).