The Allahabad High Court recently ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay an amount of ₹50,000 to an accused after the police submitted incorrect information about his criminal history to oppose his bail plea [Furkan v State of UP]

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal was dealing with a bail plea filed by one Furkan, who was arrested in November last year in a case related to the theft of a Santro car.

Considering the merits of the case, the Court granted him bail on March 10.

However, his counsel also sought an order against the police department, stating that he could have been released on bail on February 23 but he remained in jail for 15 more days as the police claimed he had a criminal history of 12 cases instead of five cases. 

The Court noted that the incorrect information was supplied by the Investigation Officer (IO), adding that the accused has already explained the criminal history of five cases. 

“Therefore, compensation of ₹50,000 shall be paid by the State to the applicant within a period of one month from today. From the perusal of record, it is also clear that there was no malafide on the part of the I.O. but there was mistake because of his negligence that may be due to workload on him,” the Court said.

After the accused contested the claim about his criminal history, the Court had summoned the Additional Director General (Technical Services) [ADG] of Lucknow. Appearing via VC on March 10, ADG Naveen Arora conceded the IO’s mistake.

Arora also submitted that it is very easy to trace the criminal history of any accused through Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS).

Arora further said that access to fetch the case diary through Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) was given to Joint Director of Prosecution at Allahabad High Court but the officer refused to avail that facility due to shortage of staff in his office.

The Court then directed Director Prosecution to ensure sufficient staff in the office of Joint Director of Prosecution to enable him to avail the facility of fetching the case diary through ICJS to prevent the delay in obtaining instructions.

Advocates Shravan Kumar Singh and Umesh Kumar Patel represented the accused.

Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Saxena appeared for the State.

[Read Order]