In a significant procedural intervention concerning personal liberty and the efficiency of criminal justice administration, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to scrutinise systemic delays plaguing bail hearings, raising serious concerns over the State’s failure to effectively implement the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) despite years of technological advancement and repeated judicial directions.
The controversy began when the Court was informed that even after receipt of a bail notice, prosecution instructions could not be obtained for weeks due to a fully manual, multi-layered process involving police stations, district offices, and ‘pairokars’.
Counsel for the State conceded that instructions were still awaited despite notice having been served days earlier, prompting the Court to summon senior prosecution and technical officials to understand why bail matters, directly impacting a person’s liberty, were still stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
Taking a hard look at the situation, the Bench delivered a stinging assessment of the status quo, noting that “the entire process including handing over the bail notice as well as obtaining the instruction is being completed manually which takes considerable time though, the matter of bail relates to liberty of a person.” The Court observed that despite ICJS being conceptualised in 2009 with thousands of crores allocated, its implementation in Uttar Pradesh remained “slow in progress”, adding that continued reliance on manual transmission of instructions amounted to “wastage of time of police personnel and public money.”
Consequently, the Court directed the Director General, NCRB to take immediate steps for effective ICJS implementation in Uttar Pradesh, ordered the Chief Secretary to strengthen the prosecution office with adequate manpower, and mandated the DGP, U.P. to ensure that bail instructions are transmitted electronically instead of through physical channels.
Case Title: Ratvar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 41021 of 2025
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Saurabh Pandey
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, G.A
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
