Laxity Shows How State Defends Own Cops: SC Slams UP Govt in Fake Encounter Case

The SC came down heavily on the state government for not arresting accused policemen despite court orders.

Image used for representational purposes.

(Photo: Liju Joseph / The Quint)

While hearing a writ petition filed by Yashpal Singh, father of the deceased in an alleged fake encounter case of 2002, the apex court came down heavily on the state government for not arresting accused policemen despite court orders for the same.

Further, a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose directed the state government to deposit Rs 7 lakh as compensation to the petitioner and also made some strong observations in its order dated Thursday, 30 September.

"The petitioner, who is the father of the deceased who was killed in alleged encounter by police, has been running from pillar to post from the last 19 years. Unfortunately, the manner in which the state has preceded, the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India," an excerpt in the order read.

THE CASE

The case reportedly dates back to August 2002 when an FIR was filed alleging that some policemen killed Pradeep, a BTech student.

Pradeed, a resident of Sahpani village in Sikandrabad area, was on his way back home in a bus after depositing his fees at a Ghaziabad college when the incident allegedly took place.

WHAT ELSE DID THE COURT SAY?

Petitioner Yashpal Singh alleged one of the accused Randhir Singh, a retired circle officer, was given protection by government against any disciplinary proceedings despite court order on stay on their salary. The apex court, in its order, pulled up the state government for allegedly protecting the accused.

"Learnt counsel for the petitioner has stated that the fourth accused who is absconding has retired from service in the year 2019 and has been paid all his retiral dues even though there was an order for stopping payment of salary. Such conduct of the respondent/state cannot be understood. The laxity with which state is preceded in the present case speaks volumes of how state machinery is defending or protecting its own police officers," another excerpt in the order read.