Allahabad High Court
NARESH SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that the absence of information or intelligence does not constitute negligence, and therefore the tribunal’s order imposing punishment on the petitioner was set aside.
Summary
The petition was filed by Naresh Singh, who was the Chowki In‑charge, challenging a tribunal order that had upheld a charge of negligence for failing to prevent a second explosion of seized explosives. On 7 November 2023 a large quantity of illegal firecrackers and related materials were seized from Shadab’s house, and a subsequent explosion on 22 January 2024 killed two children. The State alleged that Singh, despite being aware of the earlier seizure, did not act on any intelligence to stop further collection and therefore was negligent. Singh contended that he was not the investigating officer and that no information about renewed stockpiling was ever communicated to him. The High Court held that negligence cannot be inferred merely from the absence of intelligence and that the State failed to prove any dereliction of duty on Singh’s part. Consequently, the tribunal’s judgment and the punitive censure were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chowki In‑charge can be held negligent for failing to prevent a subsequent explosion in the absence of specific intelligence.
- Whether the State has discharged the burden of proving dereliction of duty under police procedural standards.
Legislation cited
- Explosives Act, 1884 — s. 9B(1)(A)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 286
Subjects
- police negligence
- duty of care
- explosives
- administrative law
- writ petition
- censure
- intelligence failure
- IPC Section 286
- Explosives Act 1884
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 10542 of 2026
Naresh Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner, at the material time, was Chowki In-charge. He has
challenged judgment dated 23rd March, 2026 of the Tribunal rejecting his
claim petition.
2. Facts are, there was seizure of large quantity of explosives on 7th
November, 2023 from house of one Shadab. Subsequently, on 22nd
January 2024, there was explosion in the house of said Shadab. This was
by reason of explosion. A concrete slab fell. Two minor children lost their
lives. Charge framed against petitioner was of negligence in allowing the
explosives collected, leading to the explosion. Mr. Vinod Kumr Mishra,
learned advocate appears for petitioner and Mr. Sharad Chand Upadhyay,
learned advocate, Standing Counsel for the State.
3. On our direction department has made English translation of impugned
judgment dated 23rd March, 2026. English translation of paragraph 2 of
the judgment, bearing the charge, is reproduced below.
"2. According to the facts, Opposite Party No.4, the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), District Muzaffarnagar, issued a show-
cause notice dated 23.03.2024 to the petitioner, citing the following
allegations:
"During the year 2023-24, while you were posted at Police Station
WRIA No. 10542 of 2026
2
Khatoli, District Muzaffarnagar, a preliminary inquiry into facts
recorded in a report dated 14.02.2024, submitted by the Superintendent
of Police (city), District Muzaffarnagar, vide an order dated
19.02.2024. The preliminary inquiry confirmed that, despite the
registration of Case Crime No.475/23 under Section 286 of the IPC
and Section 9B(1)(A) of the Explosives Act, 1884 on 08.11.2023 at
Police Station Khatoli against Rashid, 2- Aslam sons of Irshad, 3-
Irshad son of Sharif, 4-Haseen alias Bhura son of Jumma, and 5-
Shadab son of Shakeel, all residents of Village Kailawada, PS Khatoli,
for the illegal manufacture and storage of firecrackers; and after the
investigation being entrusted to Sub-Inspector Rajanlal who filed
charge-sheet no.408/23 on 28.11.2023; you failed to inform higher
authorities or take any action in accordance with the rules regarding
the fact that the aforementioned Shadab son of Shakeel Ahmed had
again started collecting and manufacturing explosives in his house
following the incident of 07.11.2023. This conduct of yours
demonstrates negligence towards official duty, indiscipline, and
arbitrariness, which is censured."
4. Mr. Upadhyay submits, he has instructions dated 20th September, 2026
and hands it up. Petitioner's defence was, he was only Chowki In-charge
and not the Investigating Officer (IO). However, after recovery of the
explosives, he failed in his duty to prevent further collection, leading to
the explosion. In the circumstances, negligence was proved and
accordingly there was order of punishment directing censure entry. No
interference is called for.
5. Apart from petitioner's stated defence that he was not IO in the case of
recovery of the explosives on 7th November 2023, petitioner also took
defence that he had no information whatsoever regarding collection of the
explosives subsequent to the raid. We reproduce below a passage from
English translation of paragraph 10 in impugned judgment, reproduced
below.
"10- Thus, it is clear that the accused Shadab was common to both the
incidents. Furthermore, by virtue of being an accompanying officer
WRIA No. 10542 of 2026
3
(hamrahi) to the Senior Sub-Inspector in the incident dated 07.11.2023,
and upon the recovery of 1,732 kg of illegal firecrackers, 176 kg of raw
material, 6 kg of saltpetre (shora), and 5 kg of gunpowder from the
possession of all the accused persons including the accused Shadab, the
petitioner was well aware that illegal firecrackers were being
manufactured by these persons. Admittedly, both the incidents dated
07.11.2023 and 22.01.2024 occurred in Village Kailawada, Police
Station Khatauli, which fell under the jurisdiction of the very police
outpost whereof the petitioner was the in-charge. Following the recovery
of the aforesaid materials from the possession of the other accused
persons including the accused Shadab on 07.11.2023, and in light of the
anticipation that firecrackers and fireworks would be prepared in
celebration of the consecration of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple on
22.01.2024, it was the bounden responsibility of the petitioner to keep a
strict vigil on those houses/accused persons from whose possession
explosive substances, firecrackers, and manufacturing materials had
previously been recovered in the large quantities. However, the petitioner
failed to gather intelligence in his area in this regard, offering merely the
explanation that no information regarding the manufacturing of
firecrackers at Shadab's house was supplied to him at any level, whether
by the accused's neighbours, family members, or the beat constable."
On query, Mr. Upadhyay is unable to show us anything from the material
on record that there was some information in the Chowki regarding
movement and collection of explosives on or after 7th November, 2023.
6. There was stockpiling of large quantity of explosives without detection
until information was received, followed by raid and recovery.
Subsequent thereto, there must have been collection of the explosives, to
have caused the explosion on 22nd January, 2024. However, State has not
been able to demonstrate any dereliction of duty upon some
information/intelligence received regarding fresh stockpiling. The Police
do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act
cannot be termed as negligence. On top, the record bears petitioner's
prompt action upon the explosion happened.
WRIA No. 10542 of 2026
4
7. In view of above, impugned judgment and order dated 23rd March,
2026 is set aside and quashed with consequence of the punishment also
set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 21, 2026
Irshad
Digitally signed by :-
IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…