Megha Raikwar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 946 of 2025
Megha Raikwar …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. And 4
Others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Jay Prakash Singh Yadav,
Raghvendra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
In Chamber AFR
Reserved on: 23.02.2026
Delivered on: 03.06.2026
HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1
Kautilya , in his Arthashastra, prescribes that those possessed of
ministerial qualifications shall, in accordance with their individual capac­
ity, be appointed as Superintendents of Government Departments. While
engaged in the discharge of their duties, they shall be examined daily; for
men are by nature fickle-minded and, like horses at work, exhibit con­
stant changes in their temperament. Accordingly, the agencies and instru­
ments of which they avail themselves, the place and time of the work in
which they are engaged, as well as the precise form of the work, the ex­
1 Reference: Second Book, Chapter IX; Examination of the conduct of the Government Servants of
Kautilya’s Arthashastra translated by R. Shamasastry. Kautilya’s Arthashastra translated by R.
Shamasastry (1868-1944), is a seminal ancient Indian treatise on State craft, economic policy, and
military strategy, originally composed by Kautilya. Shamasastry first published the text in 1909 and
English translation published in 1915.

2
HABC No.946 of 2025
penditure incurred, and the results achieved, shall all be daily ascer­
tained.
A fine of twice the amount of their daily remuneration and of the
expenditure incurred by them shall be levied in respect of any inadver­
tence or neglect on their part in discharge of their duties.
Whosoever among the Superintendents realizes revenue equal to,
or in excess of, the amount fixed shall be honoured with promotion and
rewards. The present matter is a reminder that, this ancient wisdom re­
mains as relevant to the governance of public administration, today as it
was when first articulated, almost 2300- 2400 years ago.
1. Heard Shri Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the
material available on record.
2. The present writ petition, in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus,
has been filed by the petitioner- the mother of the corpus- seeking a di­
rection to respondent nos.1 to 3 to recover the corpus, a minor girl aged
about 15 years, from the alleged illegal custody of respondent no.5 and
to restore her custody to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the corpus was ille­
gally enticed away by respondent no.5 on 10.06.2025. Thereafter, the pe­
titioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, P.S. Sipri
Bazar, Jhansi (respondent no.3), pursuant to which an FIR dated
11.06.2025 was registered as Case Crime No.212 of 2025, under Sec­
tions 87 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at P.S. Sipri
Bazar, District Jhansi.
4. It is further submitted that, subsequently, on 16.06.2025, another
application was submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police,

3
HABC No.946 of 2025
Jhansi. However, despite the aforesaid efforts, the corpus has not yet
been recovered. Learned counsel further states that respondent no. 5,
who is the named accused in the aforesaid case, was arrested during the
course of investigation and was thereafter released on bail. It is also
submitted that a charge-sheet came to be filed on 13.08.2025, i.e., within
approximately sixty days from the date of registration of the FIR, with­
out arraying real accused.
5. In response to the contentions raised in the petition, learned
A.G.A. filed the instructions, and upon perusal of the instructions, it ap­
pears that the charge-sheet has been submitted primarily on the basis of
the statements of the accused and certain other witnesses, who have
stated that the victim had accompanied the accused and was with him at
the railway station. According to their version, the victim subsequently
boarded a train while the accused was asleep at the railway station, with­
out informing him of her destination. The manner in which the investiga­
tion has been conducted gives rise to serious concerns. Prima-facie, it
appears that the Investigating Officer has failed to conduct a fair, impar­
tial, and effective investigation. The investigation does not appear to
have been carried out with the requisite diligence and objectivity ex­
pected in law, and the conduct of the Investigating Officer appears to
have compromised the propriety and integrity of the investigative
process.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Senior Superintendent of Po­
lice, Jhansi, was directed to file a personal affidavit indicating: (i) the
particulars of the officer, who supervised the investigation and
approved/forwarded the charge-sheet; (ii) whether the supervising officer
was satisfied with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Investi­
gating Officer; and (iii) the reasons for the failure to take effective steps
for the recovery of the corpus, despite her being a minor, notwithstand­
ing the allegations leveled in the FIR.

4
HABC No.946 of 2025
7. In compliance with the order dated 02.12.2025, learned A.G.A.
had handed over, on behalf of the State, the personal affidavit of the Se­
nior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, which was taken on record. Upon
perusal of the said affidavit, it was evident that the same did not address
the specific requirements stipulated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order
dated 02.12.2025. In particular, paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order
expressly required the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, to state in
the affidavit as to whether the directions issued by this Court in Subhash
2
Chandra & Others v. State of U.P. & Another , had been duly complied
with by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and,
if so, to furnish the particulars of such compliance. The affidavit filed in
compliance of the aforesaid order was, however, conspicuously silent on
this material aspect and failed to disclose, whether the mandate laid
down by this Court in the aforesaid decision was adhered to while con­
ducting the investigation.
8. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies and the failure to comply
with the specific directions issued by this Court, the Senior Superinten­
dent of Police, Jhansi, was directed to remain present before this Court
through video conferencing on the next date fixed at 12:30 p.m. The said
officer was further directed to explain the reasons for such non-compli­
ance and to ensure that the directions previously issued by this Court
have been complied with in their true letter and spirit. It was also ob­
served that the Court expected the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jhansi, to acquaint himself thoroughly, prior to his appearance, with the
directions laid down by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra), so as to
ensure meaningful compliance thereof and to enable him to render
proper and effective assistance to the Court on the next date of hearing.
9. In compliance with the order dated 10.12.2025, learned A.G.A.
had placed written instructions on record. A perusal thereof shows that at
2 (2025) SCC OnLine All 3029

5
HABC No.946 of 2025
Serial No.95 it has been specifically stated that the charge-sheet in the
present case was submitted after due compliance with the directions is­
sued by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra). In view of the aforesaid
statement, the Station House Officer concerned was directed to place on
record a copy of the charge-sheet along with the legal opinion obtained
from the Law Department and all other approvals, recommendations,
and documents relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the direc­
tions contained in the aforesaid judgment.
10. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents annexed
thereto, it prima-facie appeared that the investigation has not been con­
ducted in an effective, fair, impartial and comprehensive manner. The
material brought on record further indicated that the charge-sheet had not
been submitted in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in
Subhash Chandra (supra). In view of the aforesaid, this Court directed
the police to place on record ten charge-sheets, one each from ten differ­
ent districts, so as to enable the Court to examine whether charge-sheets
are being submitted in accordance with the directions and mandate laid
down by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra).
11. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the directions
issued by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra) are reproduced herein­
below:
“33. This is an appropriate stage where this Court suo-motu
exercises the powers vested in it to uphold the majesty of the
judicial process and to strike a balance between the unfettered
power of the police to investigate and the need to maintain the
purity of the legal system. Accordingly, the Court hereby directs
the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to ensure;
33.1 Develop a need-based, customized training program tailored
specifically for Constables, Head Constables, Sub-Inspectors and
Inspectors- the key officers involved in criminal investigation. The
course material contained 1282 pages and compiled in five
volumes shall be divided into-small, self contained booklets-each
covering specific subject area focusing on specific nature of
offence for easier understanding and flexible learning. The
objective of the program is to enhancing the professional

6
HABC No.946 of 2025
capabilities of the investigators at the police station level to ensure
accessibility and practical relevance.
33.2 Column-16 of the police report must contain clear and
complete entries, (i) brief contents of the FIR, (ii) name of the
suspects in the FIR, (iii) name of the accused mentioned in the
charge-sheet, (iv) name of the suspect against whom the
investigation has been pending and the reason thereof, (v) specify
the role of each accused in the commission of the crime surfaced
during investigation, (vi) details of seizure made- date, time, and
particulars of recoveries, (vii) brief statement of prosecution
witnesses- public, police, and formal- who said what?, (viii) details
of scientific and forensic evidence, (ix) details of C.D.R. or
C.C.T.V., (x) names of the accused arrested during investigation,
(xi) name of the accused who have been granted anticipatory bail
during investigation, (xii) name(s) of the accused whose arrest has
been stayed by the High Court/Supreme Court, (xiii) name(s) of
the accused qua whom charge-sheet has been filed without arrest,
(xiv) name of the person(s) against whom Section 94 B.N.S.S.,
2023 has been issued to produce which document or other thing,
(xv) name of the person(s) against whom proceedings under
Section 84 and 85 B.N.S.S., 2023 have been commenced, (xvi)
details- number of notices issued by the I.O. to the accused(s) to
join investigation, (xvii) number of date(s) the accused premises
have been raided during investigation, (xviii) details of order(s)
obtained by the accused from the High Court/Supreme Court
during the investigation, (xix) any other incriminating evidence
collected by the Investigating Officer forming part of the column-4
of the case diary, and (xx) any additional information by the
investigating officer.
33.3 The details mentioned herein above are for illustrative
purposes only. It is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Officer
to exercise discretion and decide whether any other details need to
be included in the police report, based on the requirements of each
individual case.
33.4 The Director General of Police, through the Commissioner of
Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, shall initiate a training
drive for Investigating Officers to equip them with the necessary
skills to prepare charge-sheets in accordance with the law.
33.5 The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh shall ensure the
strict implementation of the circular bearing no. DG/Circular
No.-06/2018 dated 19.02.2018, issued by the Director General of
Police, whereby it has been made mandatory to every Investigating
Officer that upon completion of investigation, prior to submission
of charge-sheet/final report, the Investigating Officer must forward
the draft charge sheet along with case diary to the Prosecution
Officer through the Circle Officer. The Prosecution Officer shall
review the case diary and evaluate the evidence collected during
the investigation. If any shortcomings or inconsistencies are found,
they shall be indicated, and further investigation shall be directed
to address those issues. The case diary shall be returned to the
Investigating Officer via the same channel after the Prosecution

7
HABC No.946 of 2025
Officer's review, and only thereafter, the charge sheet or final
report shall be submitted to the Court. The aforesaid circular has
been issued in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court
titled as "Perumal v. Janaki [(2014) 5 SCC 377]". The true typed
copy of the circular has been annexed herewith as Enclosure-I.
33.6 If the charge-sheet is filed for offenses where life
imprisonment is the prescribed punishment, the Investigating
Officer must forward the draft charge-sheet along with the case
diary to the Prosecution Officer through the Commissioner of
Police or Senior Superintendent of Police, as applicable. The other
directions contained in Enclosure-I shall remain same. Pursuant to
this order and for the aforesaid purpose, the aforementioned police
officers are hereby directed not to delegate this responsibility to
any subordinate officers.
33.7 The Director General (Prosecution) shall issue general
guidelines to all the Prosecution Officers to review the charge
sheet along with the case diary in a time-bound manner. The
number of days to complete the said exercise shall be decided by
the Department of Prosecution.
33.8 The charge sheet shall be filed along with a duly paginated
Index containing; (a) serial number, (b) date-wise brief description
of the investigation in seriatim- C.D. wise details, (c) details of
document collected during investigation, (d) brief description of
steps taken by Investigating Officer, (e) details of Section 94
B.N.S.S., 2023 notice, issued to "any person" to produce document
and other thing, and (f) or any other details as deem fit by the
Investigating Officer.
33.9 Every Investigating Officer, upon completion of the
investigation, prior to submission of charge-sheet/final report, must
make an endorsement in the case diary a day prior or on the date of
submission of the charge sheet to the Court that the steps
mentioned in the check list and the mandate of circular bearing no.
DG/Circular No.-06/2018 dated 19.02.2018, issued by the Director
General of Police, and directions issued herein in 33.5 & 33.8 has
been complied with in letter and spirit. The copy of the Case Diary,
containing the aforesaid details, shall be forwarded to the Court
following the report under Section 193 BNSS, 2023.
33.10 If preceding Direction Nos. 33.5 & 33.8, have not been
complied with by the Investigating Officer, the learned Special
Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the learned Magistrate, as the
case may be, shall immediately communicate the non-compliance
to the Commissioner of Police or the Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police and direct that appropriate
departmental action be initiated against the Investigating Officer. It
is equally the duty of the Court to ensure that the orders passed by
the Constitutional Courts are strictly implemented by the
authorities, upholding the rule of law in both letter and spirit.
33.11 If preceding Direction No. 33.6 has not been complied with
by the Investigating Officer, and Commissioner of Police or Senior

8
HABC No.946 of 2025
Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police, as
applicable, the learned Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or
the learned Magistrate, as the case may be, shall immediately
communicate the non-compliance to the ACS (Home) and a copy
of the same shall be sent to Director General of Police for
necessary action.
33.12 The concerned Station House Officer (S.H.O.) shall be held
primarily accountable for dereliction of duty if, upon completion
of the investigation and prior to submission of the charge sheet or
final report before the Court, the police report is not forwarded to
the Prosecution Officer through the Circle Officer or the Police
Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), as
applicable. In instances where the Police Commissioner or the
S.S.P. declines to forward the charge sheet for review to the
Prosecution Officer in cases involving a prescribed punishment of
life imprisonment, the S.H.O. shall make a corresponding
endorsement in the case diary and submit a report detailing the
same to the senior officers.
33.13 The Commissioner of Police/S.S.P./S.P. shall file monthly
report about the compliance of DG/Circular-06/2018 dated
19.02.2018, to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh with a
copy to Director General (Prosecution), without fail.
33.14 A fresh Office Memorandum/Circular should be accordingly
issued by the Home Department, instructing the Director General
of Police and the Directorate (Prosecution) to issue a fresh
Circular/Office Memorandum to their respective officers based on
the foregoing directions, at the earliest.”
12. Upon examination of the ten charge-sheets produced from the re­
spective districts pursuant to the orders of this Court, it has been ob­
served that the directions laid down in Subhash Chandra (supra) have not
been uniformly adhered to. The material placed on record indicates that,
in a number of cases, the investigating agencies have failed to ensure
compliance with the requirements mandated therein, thereby reflecting a
lack of effective implementation of the aforesaid directions at the field
level.
13. Before adverting to the merits of the present case, it would be ap­
posite to briefly examine the background and context in which the direc­
tions in Subhash Chandra (supra) came to be issued. The directions con­
tained in Subhash Chandra (supra) are founded upon the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in Sanuj Bansal v. State of U.P. and An­

9
HABC No.946 of 2025
3 4
other , Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand , R.K. Dalmia etc. v. Delhi
5
Administration , and Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar
6
Pradesh and Another , wherein emphasis was laid upon fair, impartial,
scientific, and legally sustainable investigation as an indispensable
component of the criminal justice system, and entries to be made in
Column-16 of the charge-sheet proforma.
13.1 Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Subhash
Chandra (supra), the Director General of Police (Training), Uttar Pra­
desh, placed before the Court a comprehensive set of five compilations
comprising more than 1,282 pages. Each compilation contained extens­
ive material relating to the training, supervision, and standardisation of
criminal investigation under the new criminal laws. The documents,
inter-alia, included training course materials for Sub-Inspectors, Deputy
Superintendents of Police (Law and Investigation), Constables (Law and
Investigation), and other investigating personnel; the objectives and cur­
riculum relating to training under the newly enacted criminal laws; pro­
motional course syllabi for Constables, Head Constables, Sub-Inspect­
ors, and Inspectors; circulars and directions issued from time to time by
the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for improving the quality
of investigation; Crime SOP Handbooks; Standard Operating Procedures
relating to crime-scene investigation; digital library resources; details of
officers trained outside the State by specialised agencies.
13.2 A copy of Memoranda of Understanding executed with the Na­
tional Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) and
the National Raksha University; communications concerning forensic in­
vestigation issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Institute of Forensic Sci­
ence; checklists for investigation of heinous offences circulated by the
Additional Director General (Crime); action plans for investigation
3 SLP (Crl.) No. 10536 of 2023
4 (2024) 6 SCC 758
5 (1962) SCC OnLine SC 83
6 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 726

10
HABC No.946 of 2025
circulated to various zones, ranges, and districts; the updated
Investigation Handbook, 2021; SOPs issued by the Director General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh, as well as the Directorate of Prosecution;
compilations of crime-specific checklists prepared by different units; and
numerous circulars providing for departmental action against errant
Investigating Officers whose investigations were found to be deficient or
unsatisfactory. The aforesaid material demonstrates the extensive institu­
tional framework, training infrastructure, procedural safeguards, and su­
pervisory mechanisms that have been developed by the State authorities
to ensure that criminal investigations are conducted in a professional,
scientific, and legally compliant manner.
14. Upon a detailed examination of the five volumes of material
placed before it, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the
numerous circulars, guidelines, handbooks, and standard operating pro­
cedures issued from time to time may not be readily comprehensible to
police personnel at the field level, particularly those serving in the ranks
of Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector, and Inspector. The Court
noted that the effective implementation of such directions would depend
not merely upon their issuance, but also upon their proper dissemination
and understanding through continuous and practical training imparted in
simple and accessible language. Accordingly, the Director General of
Police (Training), Uttar Pradesh, was directed to prepare ‘chapter-wise’
and ‘offence-wise checklists’ in a simplified format, categorising various
offences and the corresponding investigative requirements in a manner
capable of being easily understood and implemented by police personnel
at all levels. The object behind the said direction was to translate the ex­
isting legal and procedural framework into a practical investigative tool,
so as to ensure uniformity, efficiency, and legal compliance in the con­
duct of criminal investigations throughout the State.

11
HABC No.946 of 2025
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Director General of Police
constituted an Expert Committee headed by the Director General of Po­
lice (Prosecution) to examine and deliberate upon the suggestions and
recommendations received from various stakeholders. Inputs were also
invited from different wings and specialised branches of the police de­
partment so as to ensure a comprehensive and practical framework for
investigations.
15.1 The Directorate of Prosecution thereafter undertook an extensive
review of the checklists and recommendations submitted by various de­
partmental units, District Joint Directors (Prosecution), and Prosecution
Officers across the State. Upon a detailed assessment of the material re­
ceived, the Committee classified and categorised offences and formu­
lated a uniform and standardised ‘checklist’ with a view to ensuring
quality, consistency, and legal compliance in criminal investigations.
While preparing the said checklist, particular emphasis was laid upon
harmonising investigative practices with the provisions introduced under
the new criminal laws of 2023. Special attention was accorded to the col­
lection, preservation, and evaluation of forensic and digital evidence in
relation to each category of offences, with the objective of strengthening
the evidentiary foundation of investigations and ensuring that the invest­
igative process remains in conformity with contemporary legal and tech­
nological requirements. It was in the backdrop of these materials, and the
law laid down by the Supreme Court, that this court in Subhash Chandra
(supra) formulated and issued the directions intended to strengthen the
quality of investigation and ensure accountability within the investigat­
ing machinery.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
affidavits filed by the Station House Officer concerned as well as the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, this Court, by order dated
11.02.2026, reserved the petition for judgment and directed that it be

12
HABC No.946 of 2025
listed on 19.02.2026 for pronouncement of judgment. While doing so,
liberty was granted to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of
Uttar Pradesh, to place on record, if so advised, an affidavit explaining
the reasons for persistent non-compliance of the directions issued by this
Court. Such affidavit was directed to be filed before the next date of
listing, i.e., 19.02.2026.
16.1 This Court further observed that the present matter does not ap­
pear to be an isolated instance of non-compliance. Prima-facie, the ma­
terial placed on record indicated that the directions issued in Subhash
Chandra (supra) have not been effectively implemented despite the lapse
of nearly a year from the date of the judgment. The Court also noted
that, in the charge-sheets examined by it, including those submitted sub­
sequent to the decision in Subhash Chandra (supra), the mandate and re­
quirements laid down therein had not been duly complied with, thereby
disclosing a pattern of systemic non-adherence to the directions issued
by the High Court, and no effective steps have been taken by Home De­
partment to ensure that the ‘checklist’ prepared by it be uniformally im­
plemented.
17. On 19.02.2026, learned Additional Advocate General appeared on
behalf of the State and placed on record the personal affidavit of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. Learned Additional Advocate
General further sought a short accommodation to obtain and place before
the Court the necessary instructions from the Additional Chief Secretary
(Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. Considering the request so made,
time was granted, and the matter was again directed to be listed on
23.02.2026 for further consideration.
18. On 23.02.2026, learned Additional Advocate General again ap­
peared and placed on record an affidavit dated 20.02.2026 sworn by the
Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Additional

13
HABC No.946 of 2025
Advocate General submitted that the Home Department has taken a
decision to challenge the judgment rendered in Subhash Chandra (supra)
before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. On the
strength of the aforesaid decision, it was urged that this Court may re­
frain from passing any further orders concerning the implementation or
enforcement of the directions issued in Subhash Chandra (supra) until
the said judgment attains finality from the Supreme Court.
19. The relevant contents of the affidavit dated 20.02.2026, filed by
the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, are re­
capitulated hereinbelow:
19.1 The deponent, Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow is stated to be fully acquainted with the facts of the case. The
affidavit is filed in compliance with the order dated 11.02.2026 passed
by this Court. The deponent professes the highest regard for the orders of
this Court and tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology for any
act or omission found to be in violation thereof. Upon receipt of the
Court's order, the deponent directed the Senior Superintendent of Police,
District Jhansi, to furnish a report, which was duly submitted on
17.02.2026.
19.2 The complainant, Smt. Prabha, wife of Ram Kumar, P.S. Sipri
Bazar, District Jhansi, reported that her daughter eloped on 10.06.2025
at about 05:00 a.m. with accused- Kallu, son of Deshraj. An FIR being
Case Crime No.212 of 2025 under Sections 137(2)/87 BNS was lodged
on 11.06.2025 at P.S.- Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi. Investigation was ini­
tially entrusted to Sub-Inspector Vikas Kumar, who recorded the chik re­
port, rapat, statements of the complainant and scribe, and inspected the
spot.
19.3 The accused, upon examination on 18.06.2025, admitted taking
the victim to Delhi and thereafter to Bina on 12.06.2025, whereafter the

14
HABC No.946 of 2025
victim allegedly fled. CCTV footage at Bina Junction corroborated the
presence of both the accused and the victim together. Consequently,
Section 87 BNS was deleted, and the investigation continued under
Section 137(2) BNS. The accused was arrested on 18.06.2025, produced
before the Juvenile Justice Board, and sent to Bal Sudhar Grih, Lalitpur.
A charge-sheet was filed on 13.08.2025.
19.4 Extensive searches were conducted on multiple dates- 20.06.2025,
02.07.2025, 10.07.2025, 15.07.2025, 24.07.2025, 17.10.2025,
01.11.2025, 14.12.2025, 23.12.2025, 05.02.2026, and 08.02.2026- at nu­
merous locations including Brahmnagar Colony, Sidheshwar Nagar, ITI,
Sudama Puri Colony, Pal Colony, Gwalior Road, Bhojla, Bajrang
Colony, Badagaon, Chirgaon, Jhansi Railway Station, Bus Stand, PS
Kotwali Dehat, and GRP Shivpuri. The Marg Register and Khoya-Paya
Register kept at P.S.- Shivpuri were examined, and red-light areas of
Shivpuri were also searched. Talash-gashti was circulated through
Akashvani, Doordarshan, Press, and social media groups. Pamphlets
were pasted in public places. All efforts yielded no clue, and went in
vain.
19.5 CDRs of the accused's mobile and the complainant's mobile were
obtained and examined, but yielded no useful results. The Instagram ID
of the victim was identified, and a notice under Section 94 BNS was is­
sued to Meta Platforms, Menlo Park, California, USA. It was sub­
sequently informed that the said ID was created using mobile number
xxxxxxxxxx on 02.12.2025. CDR and CAF details of the said number
were sought from Cyber Cell, Jhansi.
19.6 Records of the One Stop Centre, District Shivpuri (M.P.) were ex­
amined. An unidentified body of a girl aged approximately 15-18 years,
burnt to approximately 90%, recovered vide Marg No.41/2025 dated
22.09.2025 at P.S.- Bhonti, Shivpuri (Case Crime No.311/2025, under

15
HABC No.946 of 2025
Sections 103(1)/238 BNS), is being investigated in coordination with
local police to rule out any connection with the missing victim.
19.7 On 16.02.2026, the SSP, Jhansi, constituted a special police team
under Inspector Kuldeep Tiwari, SHO, AHTU Jhansi, and Inspector Jai
Prakash Chaubey, SHO, Sipri Bazar, along with seven other personnel,
to intensify recovery efforts.
19.8 The DGP, Uttar Pradesh, vide Letter No.19/2024 dated
15.04.2024, had already issued directions for the recovery of missing
persons and children below 18 years to all police units.
19.9 That with regard to the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by this
Court, concerning compliance of paragraphs 33.5 to 33.14 of the order
dated 12.05.2025 passed in Subhash Chandra (supra), it was duly sworn
7
that the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai , emphasised
application of prosecutional mind to investigation and post-investigation
scrutiny, but no mandatory direction was issued requiring the Investigat­
ing Officers to have the charge-sheet reviewed by the Prosecution Of­
ficer prior to its submission. Therefore, the directions contained in para­
graphs 33.5 to 33.14 of the order dated 12.05.2025, to the extent they
mandate such pre-submission review, raise substantial questions of law,
which require consideration by Supreme Court in the light of the judg­
8
ment of the Supreme Court in R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu . In view of the
aforesaid legal position, the said directions could not be implemented in
the manner contemplated by this High Court. Accordingly, on the pro­
posal by Police Headquarters, the State Government has decided to chal­
lenge Subhash Chandra (supra) before the Supreme Court.
19.10 That with regard to the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by High
Court, it is averred that the State Government has already complied with
the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the governing field and
7 (2014) 5 SCC 108
8 (2000) 4 SCC 459

16
HABC No.946 of 2025
continues to act in accordance with the said binding directions. The State
Government reiterates that G.O. No.1909 dated 05.08.2015 and DGP
Circular No.06/2018 dated 19.02.2018, issued in compliance with the
directions of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai
(supra) shall remain in force. However, in view of the legal position
arising from the judgments of the Supreme Court in R. Sarala (supra)
and the substantial questions of law involved in the present matter, cer­
tain directions contained in Subhash Chandra (supra) could not be imple­
mented in the manner contemplated. Accordingly, the State Government
is proceeding for instituting a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme
Court.
20. At the outset, it may be noted that liberty was granted to the Addi­
tional Chief Secretary (Home) to file an affidavit explaining the reasons
for persistent non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.
However, without seeking any leave or clarification from this Court, the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) chose to have an affidavit filed
through the Secretary (Home), for reasons best known to him.
20.1 A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) reveals
that the State Government had already issued Government Order No.
1909/PU-CHAH-9-2015-31(36)/2014 dated 05.08.2015. It further tran­
spires that the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, had issued Cir­
cular No.06/2018 dated 19.02.2018 providing for scrutiny of draft
charge-sheets by Prosecuting Officers through the supervisory channel,
in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in State of Gu­
jarat v. Kishanbhai (supra).
20.2 The affidavit further discloses that the aforesaid Government Or­
der and Circular specifically recognised and incorporated the principle
laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court that, upon completion of
investigation in a criminal case, the prosecuting agency must independ­

17
HABC No.946 of 2025
ently apply its mind to the material collected during investigation and
ensure that all deficiencies and shortcomings are duly rectified, includ­
ing, where necessary, by recommending or directing further investiga­
tion. Thus, the mechanism for prosecutorial scrutiny of investigations
and charge-sheets was already in existence much prior to the judgment
in Subhash Chandra (supra).
20.3 It is noteworthy that no challenge was laid to the Subhash
Chandra (supra) for almost a year after its pronouncement on
12.05.2025. It was only when this Court, by order dated 11.02.2026,
sought an explanation from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) re­
garding the persistent non-compliance of the directions issued in
Subhash Chandra (supra), he chose to challenge the said judgment be­
fore the Supreme Court. Thereafter, through the affidavit dated
20.02.2026, this Court was informed that the Home Department has de­
cided to file a Special Leave Petition and, on that basis, a request was
made that this Court may refrain from passing further orders concerning
compliance with the directions so issued until the matter was considered
and decided by the Supreme Court.
20.4 This Court deferred the matter and awaited information regarding
the status of the proposed Special Leave Petition. However, till dictation
and signing of the present order, no order or judgment passed by the Su­
preme Court on the proposed SLP was produced by the learned State
counsel till lapse of more than three months.
20.5 The chronology of events is, therefore, of considerable relevance.
The judgment in Subhash Chandra (supra) was delivered on 12.05.2025.
Questions regarding its non-compliance were raised by this Court on
11.02.2026. The State disclosed its intention to file a Special Leave Peti­
tion only, through the affidavit dated 20.02.2026, after the issue of non-
compliance raised by this Court. These facts are matters of record and

18
HABC No.946 of 2025
necessarily fall for consideration while evaluating the conduct of ACS
(Home) regarding the continued non-implementation of the directions is­
sued by this Court.
21. The right of the State to prefer a Special Leave Petition (SLP) un­
der Article 136 of the Constitution of India is well-established and bey­
ond dispute. The State, as a litigant, occupies no inferior position before
the Supreme Court; it may invoke extraordinary jurisdiction just as any
aggrieved party would. The constitutionality of a right and the propriety
of its invocation are two distinct inquiries, still it was always open for
the State to take a conscious decision on it.
22. When a department of the Government feels aggrieved by a judi­
cial decision that adversely affects public interest, statutory duties, or the
rights of citizens dependent on governmental action, the filing of an SLP
is not merely appropriate- it is sometimes a constitutional obligation. In
such cases, the locus standi of the State is beyond challenge.
23. The ACS (Home), on the other hand, while being a senior officer
in the administrative hierarchy, occupies a supervisory and coordinating
role. His approval or concurrence in filing litigation is part of the internal
administrative process. However, when this approval is motivated not by
a genuine assessment of institutional grievance, but by personal satisfac­
tion- a desire to vindicate a personal position, settle a personal score, or
see an adversarial proceeding through its conclusion regardless of merit-
the character of the litigation fundamentally changes.
24. The two domains- departmental grievance and personal satisfac­
tion- are not merely different in degree; they are different in kind. One is
institutional; the other is individual. One is grounded in public duty; the
other in private motive.
25. Upon a consideration of the sequence of events and the material
placed on record, this Court finds it difficult to overlook the conduct of

19
HABC No.946 of 2025
Shri Sanjay Prasad, IAS (DR 1995), Additional Chief Secretary (Home),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, in the present matter. The record reflects
that, despite informing this Court in February 2026 that a decision had
been taken to challenge the judgment in Subhash Chandra (supra) before
the Supreme Court, no order was produced before this Court till date.
This Court is not aware whether the SLP was ever listed before the Su­
preme Court or not, till the dictation of the order.
25.1 In these circumstances, the plea that this Court should defer con­
sideration of the issue of non-compliance on account of the proposed
challenge to Subhash Chandra (supra) does not inspire confidence. The
conduct of incumbent ACS (Home) gives rise to a reasonable apprehen­
sion that the proposed Special Leave Petition was relied upon as a justi­
fication for postponing scrutiny of the continued non-compliance of the
directions issued by this Court, rather than as a bona fide and diligent ef­
fort to obtain an authoritative determination from the Supreme Court at
the earliest opportunity.
25.2 The facts on record, therefore, prima-facie indicates a lack of dili­
gence on the part of incumbent ACS (Home) in pursuing the very rem­
edy, which he himself projected before this Court as the basis for seek­
ing restraint in the enforcement of the directions contained in Subhash
Chandra (supra). Such conduct has the effect of impeding effective con­
sideration of the issue of compliance and cannot be viewed with ap­
proval by this Court.
26. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the question as
to why the implementation of police reforms and investigative safe­
guards has repeatedly encountered resistance at the administrative level.
The record placed before the Court indicates that, on more than one oc­
casion, judicial initiatives intended to strengthen the quality, fairness,
and accountability of criminal investigations have not received the de­

20
HABC No.946 of 2025
gree of institutional support that would ordinarily be expected from the
authorities entrusted with civil administration.
27. It is not for this Court to speculate upon the motives of any indi­
vidual officer or department. However, the sequence of events noticed
hereinabove raises legitimate concerns regarding the apparent reluctance
of the incumbent ACS (Home) to facilitate and effectively implement
measures aimed at improving investigative standards and ensuring com­
pliance with judicial directions. Such an approach, if sustained, has the
potential to impede reforms intended to enhance transparency, profes­
sionalism, and accountability within the police machinery.
28. The constitutional objective of police reforms is not to diminish
the authority of the executive over police administration, but to ensure
that investigations are conducted in a fair, impartial, professional, and
legally sustainable manner. Any resistance to measures designed to
achieve these objectives would be inconsistent with the constitutional
mandate of ensuring the rule of law and strengthening public confidence
in the criminal justice system.
29. The traditional 'Whitehall ethos' that governs the civil services in
Westminster-style parliamentary democracies is one that prized discre­
tion, secrecy, and anonymity. There may be institutional reasons for such
a culture; however, one of its untoward effects is that it renders it ex­
tremely difficult for those outside the system to discern how the civil
services operate. Such officials are, if not positively secretive, at least
extremely discreet.
30. One aspect attached to the civil services is that administrative dis­
cretion is both important and desirable. Most would agree that bureau­
cratic discretion is something to be valued, insofar as it enables public
officials to apply rules in a flexible, intelligent, and compassionate man­
ner when circumstances warrant. The other aspect is, unbridled discre­

21
HABC No.946 of 2025
tion carries with it serious risks- it undermines the rule of law; it serves
as a source of illicit power for administrative officials; it relieves them of
the obligation to furnish reasons for their decisions; it undermines legal
certainty; and it frees public officials from accountability to individuals
whose rights may be affected. In practice, such unchecked discretion of­
ten amounts to what is commonly characterised as ‘discrimination’.
31. Essentially, the exercise of discretion represents a necessary evil
in a hierarchical model, an evil to be tolerated only so long as a more
precise form of official action cannot be formulated. The rules and regu­
lations have their origin in the desire to limit discretion as a means of
achieving greater accountability.
32. Bureaucratic rigidity, an excess of rules, abundant resources
without corresponding wisdom to utilize, and the absence of any formal
system of peer assessment are, collectively, the antithesis of accountabil­
ity. It may be true that, where decisions are taken with absolute and un­
trammelled discretion, on any ground or for any reason that may suggest
itself to the mind of the administrator, no legislative act can, without ex­
press language, curtail such unlimited arbitrary power, save that such de­
cisions may be brought within the purview of fraud and corruption; but
this is not consonant with the principles of due process and the culture of
9
the rule of law .
33. Before parting with the present matter, this Court considers it ap­
propriate to place on record certain observations which, in its considered
opinion, warrant the attention of the Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Training, Government of India, being the apex authority entrusted
with the governance, regulation, and oversight of the All India Services.
The time has come for the State to evolve a doctrine of ‘superior re­
sponsibility’ and to hold senior officers in a hierarchy criminally ac­
9 Selected excerpt from Chapter VI-Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law of ‘The
Machinery of Government – Public Administration and the Liberal State’- a book by Joseph
Heath and published by Oxford University Press.

22
HABC No.946 of 2025
countable for ‘failure to prevent and/or punish acts’ of commission or
omission on the part of their subordinates.
34. The expression 'fail to prevent' must be understood to include the
taking of administrative measures and the reporting of subordinate mis­
conduct to higher administrative authorities. Exceptional situations with
widespread, systematic, and enduring effects on public administration
demand exceptional solutions. A 'duty to report or act' may appropri­
ately be developed in administrative law to address systematic and
widely prevalent underperformance, negligence, breaches of ethics, and
violations of service codes.
35. Superior officers must be held accountable for the conduct and
performance of their subordinates, as it is their professional and adminis­
trative responsibility to ensure the effective delivery of public services.
Such responsibility may be elevated to criminal liability, where the fail­
ure to prevent or punish subordinate misconduct leads to criminal acts
such as corruption, fraud, wilful suppression, contempt of Government
Orders and Gazette Notifications, and the failure to implement ‘State
Policy’ and ‘Programs’, such as zero tolerance towards organised, insti­
tutionalised corruption- whether corruption of the mind, whereby the de­
cision-making process is deliberately perverted to serve private ends un­
der the guise of official authority, or corruption of the purse, whereby
public office is converted into an instrument of personal pecuniary gain.
36. This Court, accordingly, recommends to the Secretary, Depart­
ment of Personnel and Training, Government of India, that the aforesaid
observations and recommendations be placed before the competent le­
gislative and executive authorities for due consideration, with a view to
evolving an appropriate statutory and regulatory framework incorporat­
ing the doctrine of ‘superior responsibility’ in the governance of the All
India Services and other Central Services. Such a framework, if effect­

23
HABC No.946 of 2025
ively implemented, would serve to strengthen the culture of accountabil­
ity, transparency, and rule of law within the civil services and would en­
sure that the authority vested in senior officers is exercised not as a priv­
ilege of rank but as a public trust, answerable to the people and to the in­
stitutions of constitutional governance.
37. This Court apprehends that resistance to such a framework may
find its source in the fear of losing discretion- that very discretion which
has long served as a shield against accountability, and which underlies
much of what is commonly described as ‘red tapism’. The rules and reg­
ulations have their origin in the desire to limit discretion in order to
achieve greater accountability, and that objective must not be allowed to
be subverted.
38. This Court now turns to the issue of the appropriate direction to be
issued in the present matter in view of the conduct of Shri Sanjay Prasad,
IAS (DR 1995), Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Ut­
tar Pradesh.
39. As deliberated in foregoing paragraphs, it appears that the direc­
tions issued in Subhash Chandra (supra) were the product of an extens­
ive consultative process involving the police establishment, the prosecu­
tion department, and the Home Department itself. Notwithstanding the
aforesaid, the said directions were not complied with for a period of
nearly a year after their issuance. It was only upon this Court specifically
raising the issue of non-compliance by order dated 11.02.2026 that a
Secretary of the Home Department, even though he was not called upon,
filed an affidavit dated 20.02.2026, for the first time intimated the inten­
tion of the ACS (Home) to challenge the judgment before the Supreme
Court, and no order or any document produced before this Court till the
signing of the judgment that the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of
the directions issued in Subhash Chandra (supra), even after lapse of

24
HABC No.946 of 2025
more than three months. This Court is not aware whether the matter ever
listed before the Supreme Court.
40. The conduct of Shri Sanjay Prasad, as noticed above, prima-facie
reflects a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the authority of
this Court by projecting the proposed Special Leave Petition as a basis
for seeking restraint in the enforcement of judicial directions, while sim­
ultaneously failing to pursue the said remedy with any degree of dili­
gence or bona fides. Such conduct, if left unaddressed, would have the
effect of rendering the orders of Constitutional Courts nugatory at the
hands of recalcitrant administrative officers and would set a pernicious
precedent for the manner in which judicial directions concerning ac­
countability and police reforms may be treated by the executive. This
Court cannot be a silent spectator to such conduct.
41. In view of the aforesaid, while this Court refrains from passing
any further order at this stage with respect to the non-compliance of
Subhash Chandra (supra), having regard to the resolve of the affidavit
dated 20.02.2026 filed by the Secretary (Home).
42. Accordingly, it is directed that the Registrar (Compliance) of this
Court shall transmit a certified copy of the present order and the order
passed by this Court in Subhash Chandra (supra) to the Secretary, De­
partment of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, being
the Cadre Controlling Authority of Shri Sanjay Prasad, IAS (DR 1995),
for their record, reference, and such consideration as may be deemed ap­
propriate in the context of the assessment of the said officer's suitability
for future assignments by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet
(ACC).
43. During the course of proceedings, this Court has been informed
that the corpus has since been recovered by the local police and has been
safely restored to the custody of her parents. It has further been brought

25
HABC No.946 of 2025
to the notice of the Court that the recovery was effected pursuant to the
concerted efforts undertaken under the supervision of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. In view of the aforesaid development,
the principal grievance raised in the present petition no longer survives
for consideration on merits, and no further orders are required to be
passed in that regard. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
44. Before parting, this Court places on record its appreciation for the
efforts made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, and the
police team concerned in securing the recovery of the corpus and
reuniting her with her family.
June 03, 2026
Anil K. Sharma
(Vinod Diwakar, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad