2002 encounter: Nine persons prima facie found responsible for delay & inaction, UP tells SC

The apex court had in September this year pulled up the state for the “laxity” in proceeding in the case related the alleged encounter of a man by the police in 2002.

New Delhi:The Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that nine police personnel, including five inspectors, have prima facie been found to be responsible for the delay and inaction regarding service of court processes in a matter relating to the alleged encounter of a man by the police in 2002.

The apex court had in September this year pulled up the state for the “laxity” in proceeding with the case and directed it to deposit Rs seven lakh with the top court registry towards interim costs.

While hearing a plea filed by the father of the deceased, the court had termed it a “very serious case” and observed that the laxity with which the state had proceeded “speaks volumes of how State machinery is defending or protecting its police officers".

The case pertains to the alleged encounter that had taken place in the Bulandshahr district of Uttar Pradesh in 2002.

The matter came up for hearing last week before a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose.

“In paragraph five of the status report filed by the State, it has been stated that preliminary enquiry was conducted in which nine persons have been found to be responsible for the delay and inaction in the matter. A show-cause notice has already been issued to the said persons and the enquiry against them is likely to be concluded in three months,” the bench noted in its order and posted the matter for hearing in the first week of February next year.

In its status report filed in the apex court, the state has said that a preliminary enquiry was instituted in September this year into the "inaction of the local police and their non-compliance with service of court processes".

“It is submitted that the said preliminary enquiry has been concluded and the following persons have prima facie been found to be responsible for the delay and inaction in the matter….,” said the report, which named five inspectors, three head constables, and one constable.

It said departmental proceedings have been instituted against the nine persons and show cause notices issued under Rule 14(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

The status report said the state is making all possible efforts to comply with all court orders and to ensure that justice is done and the trial of the case is concluded expeditiously.

It said there are eight accused in the case and proceedings before the concerned trial court is going on.

The state told the apex court that the salary of one of the accused was stopped with effect from May 2018 itself and his pension was stopped from September this year onwards.

“The pensions of all of the retired accused persons have been stopped and the salaries of the two serving accused persons have also been stopped,” it said.

The status report said that in compliance with the apex court's September 30 order, Rs seven lakh was deposited in the registry of the court on October 6.

The bench observed that trial against the accused in the case be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

It directed the trial court not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in the matter.

In its order passed in September, the apex court had said that the petitioner is running from pillar to post for the last 19 years to ensure that justice is given to him in the case registered against the accused, who were police officers.

The deceased's father has approached the top court through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh.

The apex court had also noted that counsel appearing for the father of the deceased had stated that one of the accused had retired from service in 2019 and he was paid all his retiral dues even though there was an order for stopping payment of salary.

The top court had said that from the record, it appears that a closure report was filed by the police but the same was rejected by the trial court in January 2005.

PTI