The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to a man whose release on bail was delayed by 15 days due to incorrect criminal history submitted by the police. The court observed that the negligence of the Investigating Officer (IO) resulted in the accused remaining in custody longer than necessary.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while hearing the bail application of Furkan, who was arrested in November last year in connection with a car theft case. Although the court granted him bail on March 10, the proceedings highlighted a significant lapse in the reporting of his criminal antecedents.
Furkan’s counsel argued before the court that the applicant could have been released as early as February 23. However, his incarceration was prolonged because the police erroneously claimed he had a criminal history of 12 cases. The applicant subsequently proved that his actual criminal record consisted of only five cases, all of which had been duly explained.
The court noted that the incorrect information was supplied by the IO. While the court acknowledged the error, it found that the mistake was rooted in negligence rather than malice.
“Therefore, a compensation of Rs 50,000 shall be paid by the state to the applicant within a period of one month from today. From the perusal of the record, it is also clear that there was no mala fide on the part of the IO but there was a mistake because of his negligence that may be due to the workload on him,” Justice Deshwal observed in the order dated March 10.
During the proceedings, the court summoned the Additional Director General of Police (Technical Services), Lucknow, to explain the discrepancy. Appearing via video-conferencing, ADG Naveen Arora admitted to the IO’s mistake. He informed the court that the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) makes it “very easy” to trace an accused’s criminal history, suggesting the error was avoidable.
The ADG further revealed an administrative bottleneck: while access to the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) was provided to the Joint Director of Prosecution at the High Court to fetch case diaries, the facility was not being utilized. The officer in charge reportedly refused to use the system, citing a severe shortage of staff.
Taking a serious view of the procedural delays, the High Court directed the Director of Prosecution to ensure that the Joint Director’s office is provided with sufficient staff. This measure is intended to enable the office to use the ICJS facility effectively, preventing future delays in obtaining instructions and ensuring that incorrect information does not impede the personal liberty of individuals.
