Slamming the Uttar Pradesh authorities for its conduct in an alleged encounter case, the Supreme Court requested it to pay interim prices of Rs 7 lakh to a person looking for justice for the homicide of his son in a case in 2002. requested for, by which the policemen are responsible.
A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose stated, “The laxity with which the state has acted in the present case shows how the state machinery is defending or protecting its own police officers.”
The order stated that father Yashpal Singh, who “has been wandering from pillar to post for the past 19 years”, was compelled to method the courtroom due to “the way the state has progressed”.
“Normally, we are slow in considering petitions filed directly in this Court, but in the exceptional circumstances of this case, we have considered this petition to ensure that justice is delivered to the petitioner, which is to be done in about two days. It has been denied for decades,” it stated. .
Additional Advocate General S Garima Prasad, showing for UP, stated that the state is taking each motion and has additionally began an inquiry as to why steps weren’t taken on the applicable stage.
“Be that as it might, having regard to the details of the case talked about above, and considering the totality of circumstances and the sufferings of the petitioner, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to deposit an quantity of Rs. With the Registry of this Court for interim value inside weeks…the petitioner… shall be entitled to withdraw the identical,” the order stated.
Although the police had filed a closure report within the case, it was rejected by the trial courtroom in 2005. However, the accused weren’t arrested. Meanwhile, the trial courtroom stayed the arrest of one of many accused.
He was not arrested even after 2017 when the HC dismissed his petitions, the SC order stated, including that the trial courtroom had in 2018 directed that his wage be withheld, nevertheless it was just for one of many accused. was accomplished for.
The Supreme Court noticed that it was solely after the problem of discover within the writ petition on September 1 that “the state machinery has geared up to act and after 19 years two accused have been arrested and one accused has surrendered. In respect of the fourth accused”. It is claimed that he’s nonetheless absconding.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the fourth accused retired from service in 2019 and all dues have been paid to him.
To this, the SC noticed that “such conduct of the respondent/State cannot be understood”.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
