The Allahabad High Court has taken strong exception to the conduct of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budaun, for failing to execute a bailable warrant against a missing appellant and for breaching protocol by deputing a Sub-Inspector to reply to a memo from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar directed the SSP to file a personal affidavit explaining why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose in Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 1984 (Anand Prakash vs. State). The sole appellant, Anand Prakash, had gone missing, as indicated by a report from the Joint Registrar (J) (Inspection) dated October 18, 2016.
On December 10, 2025, the High Court passed an order directing that a bailable warrant be issued against the appellant through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. The Court had explicitly ordered the SSP, Budaun to ensure the warrant was served, stating:
“The warrant shall not be returned unexecuted unless the Police are in a position to say on oath, with evidence annexed, that the appellant, Anand Prakash, has died or left the country.”
The order further mandated that the warrant be served wherever the appellant might have relocated.
The Report and Non-Compliance
In compliance with the High Court’s order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, submitted a report on December 17, 2025. The report revealed that the CJM had addressed a memo to the SSP, Budaun on December 12, 2025, for the execution of the warrant.
However, instead of the SSP responding personally, a Sub-Inspector posted at Kotwali, Budaun, sent a reply forwarded by the Station House Officer. The police report stated that the appellant could not be traced at his residence in Budaun or at a potential address in Moradabad.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court expressed grave dissatisfaction with the SSP’s handling of the matter, noting that the police failed to meet the specific conditions laid down in the December 10 order. The Bench observed:
“The Senior Superintendent of Police has not carried out our orders but reported that the missing man cannot be found. He has not shown courtesy of reporting to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate himself… Instead, he has asked a sundry Sub-Inspector of Police… to address a letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.”
On Breach of Protocol
The Court termed the SSP’s action of deputing a junior officer to reply to the CJM as “downright impertinence.” The Bench remarked:
“It is downright impertinence prima facie on the Senior Superintendent of Police’s part to ask a Sub-Inspector serving in a police station to write a letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district when the Chief Judicial Magistrate had written a memo to the Senior Superintendent of Police himself under our orders.”
The Court emphasized that “minimum courtesy required” that the SSP should have personally responded to the CJM.
On Contempt of Court
Regarding the failure to execute the warrant, the Court pointed out that the police did not report either of the two contingencies—death or leaving the country—permitted for returning the warrant unexecuted.
“In the circumstances, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun is prima facie in contempt of our order as well.”
Decision
The High Court ordered the SSP, Budaun to file a personal affidavit on December 19, 2025, showing cause on three points:
- Why a separate civil contempt matter may not be registered against him.
- Why he failed to apprehend the appellant when the specific contingencies for failure were not met.
- Why he did not report back to the CJM personally instead of asking a Sub-Inspector to do so.
The Court directed that in default of filing the affidavit, the SSP must appear in person.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Anand Prakash vs. State
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 1984
- Coram: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar
