Form of words:
New Delhi: A 19-year-old fake encounter case in Uttar Pradesh caught the attention of the Supreme Court last week, which forced it to pass an unusual order against the state government for using state machinery to “protect” its own policemen. did.
The top court imposed a fine of Rs 7 lakh on the UP government for its “laxity” in the matter.
The order was on a petition filed in the ‘murder’ case of 18-year-old Pradeep Kumar, who was allegedly shot dead by eight UP policemen, in what eyewitnesses described as a cold-blooded encounter on August 3, 2002. did.
Four of these policemen – Sanjeev Kumar (Sub-Inspector), Manoj Kumar (Sub-Inspector), Randhir Singh (Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police) and Jitendra Singh (Constable) – reportedly managed to stall the trial for two decades. Avoiding court summons and warrants requiring his presence in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) court in Bulandshahr, among other “delay tactics”.
In this period, Kumar’s father, Yashpal Singh, filed eight petitions in the apex court, and several applications before the Allahabad High Court and the CJM of Bulandshahr. Even after this the hearing of the case has not started.
“Normally, we are slow in considering petitions directly filed in this Court, but in the extraordinary circumstances of this case, we have considered this petition to ensure that justice is delivered to the petitioner, which is to be done in approximately two That has been denied for decades, a bench headed by Justice Vineet Saran ordered.
The bench observed that “the matter shows how the state machinery is defending or protecting its own police officers”.
While two of the four were arrested last month, when the court issued notices on the petition, the third surrendered later. The fourth is still absconding, according to the counsel for the petitioner.
case detail description
It has been a long and difficult journey for the victim’s father Yashpal Singh to reach this point.
According to the allegations in the case, Pradeep Kumar was stopped by the police when he was going to Delhi on business (for his father’s dairy). He was beaten with sticks, and then shot in the head, with the bullet piercing his body diagonally.
Police claimed that Kumar was killed in a shootout while robbing a state roadways bus. But, in December 2002, an investigation report refuted this claim, paving the way for a criminal case against the accused.
However, later, in May 2004, the local police filed a closure report against the policemen, which was dismissed by CJM Bulandshahr in January 2005 and summons were issued against the police officers.
How officials managed to avoid trial
The accused policemen followed a winding path to escape trial.
Firstly, the eight accused did not appear on the ground that the Allahabad High Court had stayed the proceedings on a petition filed by two of them. The question was raised in the petition regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrant against him. This stay was in force for 12 years.
However, even after the HC dismissed the petition and vacated the stay on 20 February 2017, only four of the eight accused surrendered in August 2018. According to court records available to ThePrint, despite the CJM’s directions, the UP police did not arrest the other four accused policemen to produce them in court.
This came even as the CJM recorded in each of his summons orders that he was under the directions of the Allahabad HC and the Supreme Court to conclude the trial in a time-bound manner.
The arrest warrant issued in April 2019 with a direction to the Director General of Police of UP also proved to be futile.
Unable to secure his presence through the normal process, the angry CJM went to the extent of instructing the UP administration to withhold the salaries of the accused policemen.
Still the four policemen escaped. While the state complied with this order in the case of only three officers, the fourth continued to receive his salary and was absconding.
Later the CJM ordered to withdraw the dues of the absconding DSP, who retired in 2019, but the police department also flouted this order.
The “laxity” with which the state proceeded in the matter has now forced the apex court to intervene.
According to father’s lawyer Divyesh Pratap Singh, two of the four accused policemen were arrested last month only after the apex court’s September 1 order issued notices on Singh’s plea. “One (third officer) surrendered while the fourth is still absconding,” he said.
Read also: Do farmers have a right to protest if laws are challenged in SC? bench for inquiry
‘Wandering from pillar to post for 19 years’
Speaking to ThePrint, Yashpal Singh said that he came to know about the alleged murder of his son a day after he was killed. On being informed by his fellow villagers, Singh reached the Filkanwari police station in Secunderabad, where he was not even allowed to go near the body.
Singh alleged that the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department, which took over the investigation on the suggestion of the inquiry committee, filed the closure report without giving a copy of the same. Rather, he alleged that the police forged his wife’s signature to complete the service.
However, Singh came to know about the move and immediately filed a protest petition against the closure report.
“I have been wandering from each other for 19 years. I have approached every court against those accused who have used all the methods of delay to prevent the trial.
Meanwhile, a case of arson and rioting was registered against Singh and his relatives, which he alleged, was done to harass them. “There has been no progress in this matter as well. Two persons named as accused in this case are already dead,” he said.
Singh said that between 2005 and 2007, the accused did not allow the trial court to proceed with the case on the pretext that the trial had been stayed by the HC. Instead, he claimed, the adjournment pertained to only one accused, who had earlier challenged the non-bailable warrant.
When Singh took up the issue, one of the co-accused took up the matter before the High Court, which in March 2007 stayed the trial in respect of all the accused. Between 2007 and 2016, Singh approached the Supreme Court and the HC several times with requests to vacate the stay.
“I had gone to the apex court for the first time as the HC dismissed the first petition filed by a police officer against the non-bailable warrant in April 2007. However, since the second petition was pending, the matter did not proceed in the trial court. I wanted clarification from the apex court whether the second petition should remain pending as the first petition was dismissed. But I was asked to go back to the HC and take up this petition,” Singh said.
When the HC did not list his petition for hearing, he kept on going back to the top court. But each time, he was asked to approach the latter.
It was in November 2016 that the apex court issued a direction to the HC, which dismissed the second police officer’s plea in February 2017.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s directions to conclude the trial in one year, the accused have delayed it by filing frivolous applications, I have no option but to approach the apex court again this year,” Singh said.
Responding to Singh’s allegations, the UP government filed a brief affidavit before the top court, promising action against the officers who allegedly shielded the accused police.
Additional Advocate General for UP, Garima Prasad submitted that the state is taking every action in the matter and has also initiated an inquiry as to why steps were not taken at the appropriate level.
(Edited by Amit Upadhyay)
Read also: SC says no state should deny Rs 50,000 ex-gratia to kin of Covid victims
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.