SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Govt. Advocate Sri V. S. Misra and learned AGA Sri A. K. Sand and have perused the counter-affidavit dated 15-1-2007 filed on behalf of the Home Secretary, U. P. and the counter- affidavit dated 16-1-2007 sworn by SP, CBCID, Union of India on behalf of DG (CBCID), Lucknow. WE have also perused the report dated 16-1-2007 submitted by the Registrar General.

(2.) AT the outset we must express our pain and anguish at the desultory compliance of our orders by the State Government. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Home Secretary it is mentioned that out of 1201 accused persons involved in 276 cases sanctions are required from the Union of India in cases relating to 225 accused persons and sanctions are needed from the State Home Department in respect of 976 accused persons who belong to the police force or other public service. Out of the said 976 accused persons no case for grant of sanction was found against three accused persons and sanction order was only issued against 9 accused persons. This is a shocking figure, considering that by our order dated 15-9-2006 we had directed that at least 2/3rd of the total number of wanted accused should be arrested within 8 weeks. Again by our order dated 16-11-2006 we had directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to ensure that within 2 months the applications for sanction should be disposed of at the appropriate level by the State Government or the department concerned, (as applicable), but to our dismay we note that only in the case of 12 persons sanction matters have been disposed of after 16-11-2006, which is less than 1% of the total number of 1201 accused persons whose sanctions are sought. It is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the CBCID that out of 1559 accused persons who could not be arrested prior to 15-11-2006, 243 persons have either been arrested or surrendered or had been accounted for otherwise and out of the remaining 1316 persons the principal reason why a large number of persons could not be arrested is because of want of sanction from the State Government or the concerned department. From this appears that either the State is indifferent to the fact whether charge-sheeted public servants be arrested or it is colluding with them, which casts a grave adverse reflection in the intention of the State to maintain law and order and to see that action is taken against prima facie culpable public servants.

(3.) WE also expect that the CBCID shall take stringent measures to conclude the investigations and to effect the arrests of the concerned accused persons who remain to be arrested or in whose cases investigations are still pending, as per our earlier orders dated 24-5-2006, 21-8-2006 and 16-11-2006 in the cases in which there is no legal impediment. The progress report shall be submitted by the DGP (CBCID) about the conclusion of investigations and arrests and the remaining impediments on the next date of listing.