The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while hearing a bail application, has expressed strong displeasure over the language used by the Superintendent of Police (SP), Kushinagar, in a personal affidavit. The Court noted that the officer used the term “court below” for the district court—a term previously deprecated by the Supreme Court—and found the contents of the affidavit to be “evasive and contradictory.”
The matter arose during the hearing of a bail application filed by Golu Pandey. The Court was examining the circumstances surrounding the death of one Saleem Ansari. In response to the Court’s earlier directions, the SP Kushinagar, Sri Keshav Kumar, and the SHO of P.S. Turkpatti filed personal affidavits. Upon reviewing these, Justice Harvir Singh, directed the SP to file a fresh personal affidavit within one week to explain his conduct and the “derogatory” language used, failing which the officer must appear in person.
Background of the Case
The case involves Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45525 of 2025, filed by Golu Pandey against the State of U.P. The underlying incident involves the death of Saleem Ansari under what the police themselves described as “suspicious circumstances.”
According to the personal affidavit filed by SP Kushinagar, Sri Keshav Kumar:
- In paragraph No. 6, it was stated that Saleem Ansari died under suspicious circumstances.
- In paragraph No. 8, it was mentioned that the cause of death could not be ascertained.
- In paragraph No. 11, the SP stated that on October 22, 2025, an injured person named Nabi Rasool was taken to a medical store where Saleem Ansari also arrived and was “stated to be quite fit.”
- Subsequently, Saleem was taken to the hospital by one Deepak, where he was declared dead.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court scrutinized the SP’s affidavit and pointed out several inconsistencies. The Judge observed that the narrative regarding Saleem Ansari being “quite fit” shortly before being declared dead appeared to conflict with other portions of the affidavit.
The Court specifically took exception to the language used in paragraph No. 10 of the SP’s affidavit, which stated, “upon which learned court below took the cognizance of the offence on 03.01.2026.”
Regarding this phrasing, the Court remarked:
“The S.P., Kushinagar is directed to explain as to under which authority of law, he has used such a language which appears to be derogatory if used by any officer. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated using that word, used for district courts as court below.”
Furthermore, the Court found the SP’s overall presentation of facts to be problematic:
“Under the circumstances, the S.P., Kushinagar is further directed to explain his conduct in respect of the affidavit filed which, prima facie, appears to be evasive and contradictory by itself as narrated in paragraphs referred to above.”
The Decision
The High Court has ordered the SP Kushinagar to provide an “appropriate reply” regarding his conduct and the language used in the affidavit.
- Deadline: The personal affidavit must reach the Court within one week.
- Consequence of Non-compliance: If the affidavit is not filed, the SP Kushinagar, Mr. Keshav Kumar, is directed to “remain present in this Court.”
- Next Hearing: The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 10, 2026, as fresh.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Golu Pandey vs. State of U.P.
- Case No: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45525 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Harvir Singh
- Date: March 25, 2026
- Counsel for Applicant: Sarvanand Pandey
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Anoop Kumar Dubey, G.A., and Sudhir Tiwari
