12 crimes or 5? How a police error in recording criminal history led Allahabad High Court to fine UP govt Rs 50,000

‘Negligence may be due to workload’

• The court considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties and the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts.
• It also considered the mandate of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and stated that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
• It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of a downloaded copy of this order from the official website of the High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
• Compensation of Rs 50,000 shall be paid by the state to the applicant within a period of one month.
• From the perusal of the record, it is also clear that there was no malafide on the part of the IO but there was a mistake because of his negligence that may be due to workload on him.
• The director (prosecution) is also directed to ensure sufficient staff in the office of joint director, prosecution, Allahabad High Court, so that he can avail the facility of fetching the case diary through Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) in its office itself to prevent the delay in obtaining instructions.

What was the case?

• After the accused filed the bail plea before the court, an objection was raised by the additional government advocate that the accused had explained the criminal history of five cases, though the case diary showed that he was having 12 cases against him.
• The court, therefore, directed him to explain the remaining criminal history.
• He submitted that he had no other criminal history.
• The court then directed the additional director general (ADG-technical services) to appear before it.
• The ADG then submitted that it was easy to trace out the criminal history of any accused through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS).
• He further submitted that due to the mistake of the IO concerned, the criminal history was incorrectly sent as 12 cases instead of five.
• It was further informed by the ADG, that now access was been given to fetch the case diary through ICJS to the joint director, prosecution, but the officer had refused to avail that facility due to the shortage of staff in his office.
• The AGA tendered an apology on behalf of the police department, with the request that the mistake may be treated as bonafide.