Follow us on Google News
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a strict stance on delays in police investigations across Uttar Pradesh, observing that investigating officers are showing lethargy and inaction in completing probes. The court stated that this problem is widespread throughout the state rather than being limited to a single area, though it clarified that these observations should not be treated as its final opinion on the issue.
A division bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made these remarks while hearing a petition seeking the transfer of a murder investigation in Sultanpur district to an independent agency. During the proceedings, the court noted that complainants are repeatedly approaching the courts for effective and fair investigations into First Information Reports, where probes often drag on for months or even years without a final report being submitted.
Further Investigation Pending in Murder Case
According to the details presented by the petitioner, an FIR in the Sultanpur murder case was registered on November 24, 2024. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet in the matter on April 21, 2025. However, the concerned trial court directed that further investigation be conducted by the concerned Circle Officer or any other Circle Officer.
The petitioner argued before the High Court that despite the specific directions for further investigation, the matter remains hanging in the balance. It was submitted that the police officials have failed to complete the probe and submit the required report before the concerned trial court, prompting the plea for transferring the investigation to an independent agency.
Personal Affidavit Sought from Additional Chief Secretary
Taking serious note of the systemic delay in criminal probes, the bench directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh to file a personal affidavit within three weeks. The court instructed the senior official to outline a concrete resolution plan to address the problem of long-pending police investigations across the state.
In the personal affidavit, the state government must specifically state whether a fixed time limit can be established for completing police investigations. The court further directed that if setting a uniform timeline is not feasible, the affidavit must explain how the persistent issue of delayed investigations can otherwise be effectively resolved.
Disclosure Ordered Under Section 193 of BNSS
Alongside seeking a structural solution for pending probes, the High Court also examined compliance with statutory provisions meant to keep victims informed. The bench directed that the personal affidavit must disclose the exact number of cases in which information regarding the progress of the investigation has been provided to the victims.
The court specifically noted that providing such updates to victims is mandatory under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Through this disclosure, the bench aims to assess whether investigating authorities are adhering to the legal requirement of keeping victims updated while probes remain pending. The court will review the state’s response and proposed measures once the affidavit is submitted after three weeks.
