The Supreme Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for being negligent and not properly contesting a murder case in which the accused was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.
The court, which was hearing an appeal against the high court's order granting bail to the murder accused, observed that though it was the responsibility of the State to protect the victims and contest the case against accused, the State did not bother to take effective steps in this case.
A bench of justices N V Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed the trial court to speed up the trial and dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within six months.
"The high court, unfortunately, passed the impugned order in a casual way granting bail to the accused, respondent no 2, without assigning any valid and proper reason," it said.
In the appeal against the bail order, the complainant submitted that the high court had simply granted bail to the accused without following the basic principles of criminal law.
It was alleged that since the time the accused had been released on bail, the complainant's family was being threatened with dire consequences if they depose against him.
The apex court said in its order, "We are constrained to observe that though it is the responsibility of the State to protect the victims and contest the case against accused, in the instant matter, the State did not bother to take effective steps.
"Not only it failed to file a petition seeking cancellation of bail against the accused, the State remained negligent and did not even feel it necessary to enter appearance and contest the matter," it said.
The bench noted that it was only after the apex court took a serious view and directed the UP government on October 29 this year calling the principal secretary (law) to muster his presence and explain the reasons, the State entered appearance.
The state government filed a counter affidavit on November 3, that is more than a year after issuing notice on October 30 last year, it noted.
Senior Advocate V Shekhar, who appeared for the state, assured the court that he will ensure the appearance of state counsel in all matters and also the timely filing of counter-affidavits.
The bench, said "However, we are not satisfied with the mere oral assurance and therefore, while expressing our displeasure, we direct the chief secretary as well as the principal secretary (law), State of Uttar Pradesh, to file affidavits within four weeks... indicating therein the steps which they are going to take to avoid recurrence of such negligence by the State.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
