Sudhir Kamlesh Gautam vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1059 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 2090 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Sudhir Kamlesh Gautam
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Bajpai,Arun Sinha
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,Nadeem Murtaza
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. 

Rejoinder affidavit to the complainant's counter affidavit has been filed in court, which is taken on record.

On 03.4.2012, following order was passed:

"Sri Krishna Kumar Verma, Advocate has put in appearance for the complainant and states that the incident of extortion by the applicant has been video-recorded.

The video-recording would be handed over to the investigating officer within two days.

The investigating officer of Case Crime No.89 of 2012, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, is directed to accept the video recording and have it examined and file a counter affidavit.

List after two weeks."

Learned counsel for the State contends that although communication was sent to the concerned police station immediately after the order was passed, however, no instructions have been received.

Learned counsel for the complainant states that video-recording was handed over to the investigating officer.

Circle Officer, Incharge of Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, is directed to remain present in Court with the reply as to under what circumstances, the investigating officer is not responding in deference to directions of this Court.

List on 14.5.2012.

Needful be done in the meantime.

For wasting time of the court, sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) is assessed as cost to be paid to U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Lucknow.

The cost would be borne by the official/officer who is found responsible for causing delay in filing response before this Court.

Costs be paid before the next date of hearing.

Order Date :- 30.4.2012/A.Nigam