MEVALAL PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                                       A.F.R.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11476 of 2026

Mevalal Prajapati
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                          :   Dinesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                     :   G.A.

Court No. - 67
           HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Roshan
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime no. 290/2025, under Sections
103(1), 238, 309(6), 317(2), Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.), Police Station-
Husenganj, District Fatehpur.

3. This matter was heard on 07.04.2026, 15.04.2026 and 24.04.206. On that
date, the Court found that though a blood-stained screw driver was sent to
FSL examination, no query was made by the I.O. whether the blood found
on the screw driver belonged to the deceased. Therefore, this Court directed
the Director, FSL, to appear before it to assist the Court vide order dated
24.04.2026, and the matter was posted for 29.04.2026. In pursuance of the
order dated 24.04.2026, the Director, FSL U.P., Lko, was present on
29.04.2026. On that date, the Director FSL informed the Court that though
the DNA profile can be generated within 3 to 4 days if blood sample is fresh
and even DNA profile can also be generated from disintegrated blood
sample, if the same was collected carefully and high-end instruments are
available in the lab and at present FSLs in UP are facing problem not only
the shortage of staff but also of latest machines required for forensic and
ballistic test. It was also informed by the Director, FSL, that though 12 FSLs
have been functioning in the State of U.P., only 8 FSLs have the facility to
generate a DNA profile. It was also informed by the Director, FSL, U.P.,
                                                          BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                 2


that, as of date, U.P. FSL is not an autonomous body under the Home
Department but is part of the police department; for that reason, it is not
administratively free to procure instruments or appoint staff. It was further
informed that, though the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, has sent
several letters to the State Government to make the FSL in U.P. an
autonomous body under the Home Department, the process is still ongoing.
Therefore, this Court again directed the Director General of Police as well as
Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., to appear before this Court
through V.C. to assist the Court along with the Director, FSL, U.P. vide
order dated 29.04.2026.

4. Today, in pursuance of the order dated 29.04.2026, Sri Rajeev Krishna,
the Director General of Police, U.P., as well as Sri Mohit Gupta, Secretary
Home, U.P., as well as Sri Adarsh Kumar, Director, U.P., FSL are present
before this Court through V.C.

5. When the Court asked the DGP, why I.Os. are not seeking query from
FSL while sending the blood sample regarding matching of DNA of the
blood found on the blood stained weapon as well as accused or deceased
then, he apprised to the Court that it is negligence on the part of I.Os. and he
will issue appropriate directions regarding seeking DNA match of blood
found on the cloth or weapon with the accused as well as deceased.

6. The DGP further informed the Court that in pursuance of the Rule 8 of
Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules 2026, he will
direct all the police officers to record the verified email, messaging
application and mobile number of the accused during the investigation and
the same would also be available to the Court through CCTNS and also
same would be mentioned in the charge sheet. It is further apprised by the
DGP that the police are also planning to use the Speech-to-Text AI module
to record the statements of witnesses under Section 180 of the BNSS,
thereby reducing the time required for manual recording.

7. The DGP also apprises the Court that as on date the e-summons received
on CCTNS have been executed to the extent of 84% but when the Court
confronted with the data available with the Court that it is less than 50% then
he assures the Court that he will take steps and issue necessary directions for
ensuring all the e-summons or other process sent by the Court on CCTNS
will have to be executed, failing which appropriate action would be taken
                                                               BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                   3


against the concerned police personnel as required under Rule 31 (1) of
BNSS Rules, 2024. The DGP also informed that District court judges are
still hesitant to issue e-summons or e-warrants, though the chances of their
execution are higher than in the physical mode.

8. The DGP further informed that the process has been initiated to fill the
vacancies in FSL so that FSL reports could be provided to the Court at the
earliest. The DGP also apprised the Court that, in pursuance of Rule 21 of
the BNSS Rules, 2024, whenever information is received regarding any
offence punishable for 7 years or more, police officers trained in forensic
science are sent to collect forensic evidence until the regular team of forensic
experts joins the police department. He also apprised the Court that a batch
of 350 police officers has been trained by UPSIFS, and as of date, the 2nd
batch is undergoing training. As soon as these persons are trained, blood
samples and other forensic samples will be collected more scientifically.

9. Sri Mohit Gupta, Secretary, Home, has also apprised the Court that in
pursuance of several letters of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, the DGP has recommended to make the FSL a separate department
under the Home Ministry, and that is pending before the State Government
for final approval.

10. The Director, FSL, on the suggestion of this Court, that as Forensic
Science University has limited capacity, then the police officers can also be
trained, at least providing basic training for the collection of a blood sample
by the local FSL. He assures the Court that he, as well as DGP, will try to
implement this suggestion so that more and more police officers can be
equipped with basic training in blood sample collection and the collection of
forensic evidence. The Court appreciates the above suggestions and the
undertaking of the above-mentioned officers.

11. On the basis of a comprehensive study from several district courts on the
basis of feedback of District Judges and other judicial officers of districts
Sambhal, Shamli, Moradabad, Hapur, Ghaziabad, Mathura, Maharajganj,
Agra, and Bulandshahar, this Court found the following reasons regarding
heavy pendency, which are being mentioned as follows;

Comprehensive Summary: Causes of Pendency of Cases

The pendency of criminal cases in District Courts is a multi-dimensional issue arising
                                                                    BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                      4

from structural, procedural, administrative, and stakeholder-related deficiencies. The
major causes are summarised as follows:

1. Pendency at Preliminary Stages due to non-appearance of the accused

2. Shortage of Human Resources

· Acute shortage of ministerial staff (clerks, stenographers, readers, deposition
writers).

· In some courts, a single clerk handles thousands of files.

· Lack of trained and computer-proficient staff.

· Shortage of Prosecuting Officers/ADGC's affecting the recording of evidence.

· Shortage of Process Servers.

3. Non-Execution of Court Processes

· Delay or non-compliance in execution of summons, warrants, and other processes by
police.

· Evasive and incomplete reports submitted by police authorities.

· Lack of accountability and monitoring mechanisms.

· Inefficient process transmission system (dependence on limited staff, like pairvi
personnel).

· Difficulties in inter-district and inter-state service of court processes.

· Limited use of electronic modes for service of court processes.

4. Witness and Accused-Related Issues

· Non-appearance of witnesses, particularly doctors and police witnesses, due to
transfer or lack of permission.

· Witnesses becoming disinterested due to repeated adjournments.

· Accused persons absconding or remaining untraceable.

· Delay in securing the presence of parties due to outdated or unavailable contact
details.

5. Inadequate Judicial Infrastructure

· Insufficient number of functional courts compared to sanctioned strength.
                                                                   BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                      5

· Large number of vacancies in judicial posts.

· Excessive daily cause lists (often 100–150 cases per day), limiting effective hearings.

· Inadequate digital infrastructure and case-tracking systems.

6. Investigation and Evidence-Related Delays

· Delay in police investigation and filing of charge-sheets.

· Late receipt of forensic (F.S.L.) reports.

· Non-production of case property (muddamal).

· Delay in submission of case diaries and records.

· Inadequate compliance with legal requirements for electronic evidence (e.g., Section
65B certification).

· Limited use of technology (speech-to-text AI module) in recording and presenting
evidence.

7. Frequent Adjournments and Bar-Related Issues

· Repeated adjournments sought by advocates on personal or professional grounds.

· Clash of dates and non-appearance of counsel.

· Prolonged and irrelevant cross-examinations and arguments.

· Incomplete documentation leading to repeated adjournments.

· Dilatory tactics and lack of preparedness.

· Apprehension of complaints against judicial officers affecting expeditious disposal.

8. Docket Explosion and Rising Caseload

· Continuous high institution of cases exceeding disposal rates.

· Even disposed matters generate miscellaneous and appellate proceedings, increasing
the overall burden.

9. Underutilisation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

· Insufficient use of mediation, Lok-Adalats, and arbitration mechanisms.

· Failure to divert appropriate cases from regular court processes.

10. Procedural Delays and Complexities
                                                                 BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                     6

· Delay in committal proceedings, especially in multi-accused cases.

· Complex and time-consuming procedural stages (evidence, cross-examination,
arguments).

· Absence of strict timelines for completion of stages.

· Frequent filing of interlocutory and miscellaneous applications.

· Restoration applications and repeated re-litigation cause duplication of proceedings.

11. Administrative and File Management Issues

· Poor file management, indexing, and tracking due to staff shortage.

· Missing or incomplete records, especially in transferred cases.

· Delay in issuance of orders, notices, and communications.

12. Institutional and Coordination Gaps

· Lack of effective coordination between the judiciary, police, and prosecution.

· Non-availability or delayed participation of prosecution officers.

· Inefficient response from monitoring committees and administrative authorities.

· Non-participation of DM, Police-Commissioner/SSP/SP in monitoring cell meetings,
instead they send their representatives despite repeated G.O.'s mandating their
personal presence in the meetings.

13. Pendency of Old Cases

· Cases pending for long durations (5+ years) are not receiving consistent priority.

· Repeated adjournments and restoration applications prolong old matters.

14. External and Practical Constraints

· Parties and witnesses relocating or becoming untraceable over time.

· Heavy workload of police authorities cited for non-compliance.

· Influence of parties affecting enforcement in some cases.

· Lack of dedicated infrastructure (e.g., counselling spaces, storage facilities like
malkhana).

12. The above study shows that apart from other reasons, the main reasons
for pendency of criminal cases in the district court is insufficient ministerial
                                                         BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                7


staff, stenographers, deposition writers and also non-execution of the court's
process by the police, as well as delay in receiving the forensic report.

13. The above comprehensive study also shows 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 concerned District Judge, especially the Commissioners of Police,
because they send their representatives. This is not only against several
government orders and 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. It is also surprising
that the State Government has issued an incorrect notification dated 17th
July 2013, showing the District Magistrate above the District Judge in
protocol, and this must be corrected immediately. Therefore, all District
Police Chiefs, including the Commissioner of Police should personally
attend the monitoring cell meeting under the Chairmanship of the concerned
District Judge, so that issues regarding the non-execution of court processes
and faulty police investigations can be discussed and brought to the attention
of the District Police Chiefs.

14. From the above mentioned comprehensive study, it is clear 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,
the DGP, U.P. has apprised the Court that he has directed all the sub-
ordinate police officers that process of court, received through electronically
on CCTNS, should be executed immediately without fail and he has also
assured the Court that he will issue proper directions for ensuring the
presence of police witnesses before the court concerned.

15. Though the High Court on the administrative and judicial sides has
requested the State Government to sanction more ministerial staff, which
includes deposition clerks, the State has not taken any steps. Therefore, main
reason for pendency of cases in district courts is not the capability of the
judicial officers but because of shortage of staff, non-execution of court's
process by the police and delay as well as incomplete FSL Report,
Therefore, it is the State Government as well as Police who are mainly
responsible for pendency of criminal cases in district courts even then
                                                            BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                  8


district judiciary is blamed by the social media and other common persons
for non disposal of their cases.

16. 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.

17. An Independent, fair and transparent judicial system is the backbone of a
mature democracy, and a judicial system that itself depends on the mercy of
the State Government for sufficient staff and execution of court process will
become like a government department struggling for basic needs and
infrastructures. Many young judicial officers, who joined the judiciary
though very honest and hardworking, having a motto to dispense justice after
entering judicial service, found themselves unable to perform because of
insufficient staff, non-cooperation by the police in the execution of court
processes(summons ,warrants, etc.), and faulty investigation and improper
FSL reports. Consequently, they became frustrated and looked to the High
Court for remedial measures, but the High Court itself cannot do anything,
as it is the State Government that must provide basic infrastructure, staff, the
FSL report, and police cooperation.

18. 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. In U.P., except for the District Judge, the first Additional District
                                                              BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                     9


Judge, and the C.J.M., PSOs to other judicial officers are not provided. This
is unlike Punjab and Haryana, where all judicial officers are provided PSOs.

19. A filmy dialogue from the film "Damini" released in the year 1993 that
"Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh Milti Rahi hai..... lekin Insaf Nahi Mila
My Lord, Insaf Nahi Mila ! Mili Hai to Sirf Tarikh". 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.

20. In the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakksha Sanhita, 2023, several provisions
were incorporated to expedite the court proceedings through digitalisation
and the use of electronic communication. Now, after completion of the
investigation, the police report can be sent to the concerned Magistrate
electronically under Section 193(3)(1) BNSS. The Magistrate is also
authorised to take cognizance upon a charge sheet received electronically as
per Section 210(1) (b) of BNSS. For reference Section 193(3)(1) and
210(1)(b) BNSS are being quoted as under;

Section 193. Report of police officer on completion of investigation

(3) (i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police
station shall forward, including through electronic communication to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form
as the State Government may, by rules provide, stating—

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of
the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond;

(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under section 190;

(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where
                                                                 BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                    10

investigation relates to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;

(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;

(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform the progress of the
investigation by any means including through electronic communication to the
informant or the victim;

(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may,
by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the
information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

Section 210. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any
Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section
(2), may take cognizance of any offence—

(b) upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode) of such
facts;

21. The U.P. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred
to as the BNSS Rules, 2024) was also framed in exercise of powers under
various sections of the BNSS, 2023. Rule 31 of the BNSS Rules, 2024 also
provides for service of summons through email, N-STEP (National Service
and Tracking of Electronic Processes), and other electronic means; therefore,
Rule 31 authorises the concerned court to send the summons through
electronic process to the accused as well as witnesses. Rule 31 of BNSS
Rules, 2024 is being quoted as under:

31. Manner of service of summons- (1) The service of summons may be done
physically, or by electronic means as follows: -

(a) directly on the witness or accused by the police, public servant or a person
nominated by the State Government, as the case may be;

(b) through e-mail, if the e-mail address is available;

(c) through publication in newspapers;

(d) by placing it at naturally visible parts of various public places in the concerned
district.

(2) Apart from the above, the service of summons may also be done by way of
electronic communication.
                                                                BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                   11

(3) The service of summons may be done through any electronic or digital
application-based system such as ICJS, National Service and Tracking of Electronic
Processes (N-STEP) or any other similar system as decided by the Government of
India or the State Government, as the case may be.

(4) The service of summons shall be done by a police officer or by any other public
servant or person as may be specified by the State Government.

(5) The following guidelines shall also be followed in respect of service of summons:

(a) a summons register shall be maintained at every police station in such format,
either physically or electronically, as may be specified by the Director General of
Police or the State Government by general or special order from time to time, in
which the Head Clerk shall enter the information relating date wise summons/warrant
so that there is no laxity in sending the summons/warrant received at the police
station to the Court for non/post serving of the summons before/after the date of
appearance. In the said summons register, the date of issuance of the process, the date
of receipt of the process from the Court, the date of service of the process, along with
the details of the recipient, the reason for the process being returned without being
served, and the date of sending the served and unserved processes to the Court shall
be recorded.

(b) If the process server returns the summons/warrant without serving it, he shall
clearly mention that the wanted person has gone out of his residence temporarily or if
he has gone out permanently for some time, then by when will he return and also find
out the full address of the place from where he went and shall also mention it.

(c) If the warrant could not be served, then considering the accused to be absconding,
relevant action shall be taken and the list of the accused's property shall be presented
to the Court so that the property can be confiscated by completing the proceedings
under sections 84 and 85 of the Sanhita.

(d) Zonal Additional Director General of Police/Regional Inspector General of
Police/Police Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of
Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police level
officers will necessarily review the level of service of summons/warrants during their
visit/inspection of police stations and ensure necessary administrative departmental
action against the concerned if the work is not found satisfactory.

(e) Where the current address of a witness transferred policeman is not known by the
Public Prosecutor, the summons of such policeman will be sent to the Establishment
Branch officer of Police at Police Headquarters Lucknow and served to him, in
addition to the local Superintendent of Police.

(f) On receiving summons/warrants of retired police or other government services, if
                                                                 BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                    12

their complete address of residence is not known, it will be ascertained from the
Pension Department. If the address given by the Pension Department is wrong, the
address will be ascertained through the bank by obtaining the bank account number.

(g) When a request is made to the Court to summon a Gazetted officer as a witness,
while fixing the date for his appearance, it will be kept in mind that he should have the
opportunity to make proper arrangements for discharging his duties during his
absence.

(h) Senior police officers and all District Magistrates will ensure that police witnesses
and other public servants summoned in all session trials are present in the Court on
the appointed date and time in every case either physically or through video
conferencing. If a policeman disobeys the order of the Court, departmental action will
be taken against him.

(i) Summons shall be sent to the heads of their offices of locally posted Government
employees not only through the police but also through other local means and in case
of disobedience, summons should be sent to the head of the department so that timely
service can be ensured.

(j) When the deployment or residence status of a police or medical witness is not
known in any way for the presence of the witness, then in such a situation the
summons shall be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and Director
General, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh, as the case may be.

(k) The status of service of summons shall necessarily be considered in the meeting of
the District Monitoring cell constituted under the chairmanship of the District and
Sessions Judge.

22. The Governor of U.P. also made U.P. Electronic Processes (Issuance,
Service and Execution) Rules, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the E-
Processes Rules, 2026) in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 64(1)
and Section 351(1) of BNSS, 2023. The E-Processes Rules, 2026 mandate
the court to generate and issue process, summons, warrants, and other
coercive processes, and to serve them through an officer of the court. E-
Processes Rules, 2026 also provide that all e-summons can be directly sent
to the accused or witnesses if the court has their electronic address/contact;;
otherwise, they will be sent to the police through CCTNS, which shall be
further served by the police itself. E-Processes Rules, 2026 also provides for
verifying the details regarding electronic email, address, phone number,
messaging applications (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, etc.) of the
accused or witnesses during investigation or inquiry so that the same can be
used by the court for sending the summons directly to the accused or
                                                                BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                   13


witnesses after taking cognizance on charge sheet. For reference Rules 3, 4,
8 of E-Processes Rules, 2026 are being quoted as under:

Rule 3. Preparation process electronic mode: The Courts shall generate and issue
process in electronic mode through CIS in such forms as set forth in the Second
Schedule of the Sanhita, with such variations as the circumstances of each case may
require. The same shall be served by an officer of the Court issuing it.

Rule 4. Service by police officer or other public servant: When the Court does not
possess required electronic address/contact details of the person to whom such
process is intended to be served or when the process issued as per rule 3 is not served,
it may direct the same to be served by a police officer or other public servant

Rule 8. Entry of verified details: The officer in charge of the Police Station shall
ensure that the verified details relating to address, disclosed electronic mail address,
phone number and messaging application used by the accused or witnesses, as the
case may be, are recorded during arrest, investigation or inquiry and entered in
CCTNS. Such details shall also be entered in the Register maintained at the Police
Station in compliance with sub-section (1) of section 64 of the Sanhita. If any of such
details is not available, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall make an
endorsement to that effect in the Register:

Provided that any such details may be amended on the basis of further verification or
on the basis of an application by such person.

23. Rule 17 of the E-Processes Rules, 2026 further provides that for
execution of warrants and other coercive measures, the court will send
electronically (NSTEP etc) on the police portal (CCTNS), then the police
will execute the same. Rule 17of the E-Processes Rules, 2026 is being
quoted as under;

Rule 17. Procedure in case of warrant: In case of warrant or any other process
required to be served In person Is Issued in electronic mode, the officer in charge of
the police station or any police officer deputed by him shall take a printout of the
warrant or process and execute the same in accordance with the Sanhita and rules
made therein.

24. Rule 9 of the E-Processes Rules, 2026 also provides that in case of a
private complaint, the complainant shall provide the electronic mail address,
phone numbers and messaging applications (WhatsApp, Telegram,
Facebook, etc.) of the accused and witnesses along with the complaint and
thereafter all processes shall be sent electronically to any of these electronic
addresses or contacts. Rule 9 of the E-Processes Rules, 2026, is being quoted
                                                               BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                   14


below;

"Rule 9. Details of address, email address, phone number etc. of the accused and
witnesses provided by the complainant : Where a case is filed on the basis of a private
complaint, the complainant shall provide the details relating to address, disclosed
electronic mail address, phone number and messaging application of the accused and
witnesses along with the complaint. If any of such information is not available, the
complainant shall make an endorsement to that effect.

25. The above-quoted BNSS Rules, 2024 and E-Processes Rules, 2026, aim
to decrease the dependency of criminal courts on the police for the execution
of court process on the one hand and also increase chances of execution even
by the police. Therefore, the District Courts have to follow BNSS Rules,
2024, as well as the E-Processes Rules, 2026, to expedite the court's
proceedings so that criminal trials can be concluded at the earliest. However,
even for the generation and electronic transmission of court processes, the
State Government has to provide additional staff with computer knowledge
to the District Courts.

26. After considering the suggestions of the Director General of Police,
the Secretary (Home) and the Director FSL, this Court summarises its
directions as follows;

i. The State Government shall consider the issue of providing additional
staff and infrastructure to the District Courts, considering the heavy
workload of cases.

ii. The State Government shall consider making U.P. FSL an
autonomous department under its Home Ministry as requested by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, through different
communications.

iii. The State Government shall make its endeavours to fill up vacancies
in Forensic Science Laboratories of U.P., along with providing high-end
instruments within one year.

iv. The State Government/Police Department will ensure training to
police officers for the collection of forensic evidence.

v. The State Government shall also consider the feasibility of providing
PSOs to all District Court Judges alike in Punjab and Haryana
                                                         BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                               15


vi. DGP, UP, shall issue directions to all District Police Chiefs, including
the Commissioner of Police, to attend the monthly Monitoring Cell
Meeting under the chairmanship of the concerned District Judge
personally.

vii DGP shall issue directions to all investigating officers to make a
query from FSLs regarding the matching of the DNA of blood found on
the blood-stained weapon and cloth with the DNA of the accused and
deceased, while sending the blood samples to FSLs.

viii. DGP shall issue necessary directions to all the police officers
involved in the investigation to record the verified email, messaging
applications (WhatsApp, Telegram and Facebook Messenger, etc.) and
the mobile number of the accused and witnesses during the investigation
and shall mention these verified details in the chargesheet apart from
entering in CCTNS as per Rule 8 of E-Processes Rules, 2026.

ix. Police shall implement as soon as possible, using the Speech-to-Text
AI module to record the statement of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS.

x. DGP shall also consider issuing DGP circular to all police officers,
mentioning therein that negligence in execution of court processes may
attract disciplinary proceedings as required by Rule 31 (1) of BNSS
Rules, 2024.

xi. Judicial officers are also directed to send e-summons, e-warrants and
other court processes as per BNSS Rules, 2024 as well as E-Processes
Rules, 2026 and also consume e-FIR and e-chargesheet as per mandates
of BNSS, 2023.

27. Coming back to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that, as per the prosecution's story, the deceased was missing since
16.10.2025, and a missing report was also lodged by the brother of the
deceased on 17.05.2025 in the form of an FIR. Thereafter, on the basis of
CDR location, he was arrested on 19.10.2025, and on his pointing out, the e-
rickshaw of the deceased was recovered. Thereafter, on pointing out the
applicant, a blood-stained screw driver was also recovered on 20.10.2025,
which was sent for FSL examination and as per the FSL report, human blood
was found thereon. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is
no eye witness of the incident, and he has been falsely implicated merely
                                                                                               BAIL No. 11476 of 2026
                                                                     16


                                    because of the recovery of the e-rickshaw of the deceased, as well as a
                                    blood-stained screw driver. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
                                    on bail during trial, as the applicant has no criminal history. A charge sheet
                                    has been filed by the police; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial
                                    interrogation. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.10.2025. If
                                    he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the
                                    trial proceedings.

                                    28. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the
                                    prayer for bail and submitted that CDR of the mobile phone of the applicant
                                    shows that he was near the place of incident on 16.10.2025 and on his
                                    pointing out e-rickshaw of the deceased was recovered on 20.10.2025 and
                                    subsequently a blood stained screw driver was also recovered on 29.10.2026
                                    on the pointing out of the applicant and aforesaid recovery was duly
                                    videographed as per Section 105 of BNSS, therefore, the applicant is not
                                    entitled to be released on bail.

                                    29. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking
                                    into account the last location of the applicant as per CDR as well as
                                    recovery of a blood-stained screw driver, which substantiates the injury
                                    found on the post mortem report of the deceased and recovery of e-rickshaw
                                    on the pointing out of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
                                    the applicant, at this stage.

                                    30. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

                                    31. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the
                                    Principal Secretary (Law)/L.R, U.P., D.G.P. U.P., Additional Chief
                                    Secretary (Home) U.P. and the Director JTRI, Lucknow.

                                    32. The Principal Secretary (Law) is further directed to place this order
                                    before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, U.P., along with its summary for his
                                    perusal.

                                    33. Director, JTRI is also directed to sensitise the Judicial Officers about
                                    relevant Rules of BNSS Rules, 2024 as well as E-Processes Rules, 2026
                                    regarding generation and electronic transmission of E-summons, E-warrants
                                    and other court's processes.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    A.Kr.
                                                                                (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)



Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad