Introduction:

In a recent and significant development, the Allahabad High Court ordered an inquiry into the alleged suppression of material facts and evidence by the state police department, the office of the Director of Prosecution, and the office of the Government Advocate. This case involves a Mahant, Mukesh Giri, who has been accused of secretly filming women while they were bathing. The Court’s order, which underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the legal process, was issued after it became apparent that key evidence had not been disclosed to the Court during proceedings. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, who presided over the matter, expressed deep concern over the failure of the prosecution to present critical evidence as previously directed by the Court. The inquiry, as ordered, is to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary, nominated by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, to determine the role of the police and prosecution in withholding vital information that is crucial to the case.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Prosecution’s Contentions:

The prosecution, represented by the State of Uttar Pradesh, faced sharp criticism from the Court for its handling of the case. Initially, when the Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit disclosing all evidence found during the investigation against Mukesh Giri, the prosecution failed to comply adequately. Despite the Court’s explicit order dated July 5, 2024, the counter-affidavit submitted on July 15 did not include the necessary evidence. Instead, it merely stated in vague terms that the applicant had committed the alleged offense. The prosecution annexed only a letter from the National Commission for Women, which the Court found insufficient and irrelevant as concrete evidence against the accused.

When the matter was brought back before the Court on August 8, the prosecution’s failure to provide the required evidence led to further scrutiny. The Court demanded an explanation from the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, as to why its orders had not been followed and what actions had been taken against the responsible officials. In response, the Commissioner filed an affidavit on August 23, revealing that proceedings had been initiated against the Sub-Inspector (SI) Rampal Singh, who was responsible for filing the earlier deficient affidavit. However, this affidavit also fell short of addressing why the relevant evidence was withheld by the State authorities.

The prosecution’s inability to present a clear and comprehensive explanation, coupled with the absence of necessary evidence, raised serious questions about their conduct. The Court’s concerns were exacerbated by the fact that neither the police department nor the offices of the Director of Prosecution and the Government Advocate fulfilled their duties to ensure that the evidence was properly presented. This led the Court to suspect either negligence or intentional misconduct on the part of the State’s legal apparatus.

Defense’s Arguments:

On the other hand, the defense, representing Mahant Mukesh Giri, highlighted the procedural lapses and apparent suppression of evidence by the prosecution. The defense argued that the State’s failure to disclose material facts and evidence pointed to a lack of credibility in the charges against their client. They contended that the prosecution’s inability to produce substantive evidence as ordered by the Court weakened the allegations against Giri, thereby strengthening his plea for anticipatory bail.

The defense further asserted that the non-compliance with the Court’s order by the prosecution was not just a minor procedural issue but a significant infringement on the principles of justice. They argued that the withholding of evidence could potentially exonerate Giri, and that the prosecution’s actions—or lack thereof—should not be overlooked. This, according to the defense, necessitated a thorough investigation into the matter to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

The defense also pointed to the fact that the only piece of evidence submitted by the prosecution—a communication from the National Commission for Women—did not directly implicate Giri in the alleged crime. They argued that this further underscored the prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case against their client.

Court’s Judgement:

The Allahabad High Court, in its judgement, took a firm stance on the issue of non-disclosure of material facts and evidence by the State authorities. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan emphasized that the deliberate or negligent failure to present crucial evidence before the Court constitutes an interference with the dispensation of justice. The Court noted that such conduct not only undermines the legal process but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

Justice Chauhan ordered a comprehensive inquiry into the matter, to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary, nominated by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The inquiry was mandated to examine several key issues, including whether the police department had provided the necessary evidence to the offices of the Director of Prosecution and the Government Advocate, and if not, why such material was withheld despite the Court’s orders.

The Court laid out specific instructions for the inquiry:

• Examination of Evidence Handling: The inquiry officer is to determine whether the police department forwarded the material evidence to the Director of Prosecution and the Government Advocate. If such evidence was sent, the inquiry must investigate why it was not included in the counter-affidavit submitted to the Court.
• Communication Failures: If the police department did not provide the evidence, the inquiry should establish whether the Director of Prosecution and the Government Advocate’s office made any written requests for the necessary materials. The inquiry must also investigate why, if such requests were made, they were not acted upon.

• Internal Reviews: The inquiry officer must examine whether the Director of Prosecution’s office conducted an internal review to ensure that the instructions sent by the police department included all the necessary evidence as required by the Court’s order.
• Accountability: The inquiry is tasked with identifying the individuals responsible for drafting and filing the counter-affidavit dated July 15, 2024, and determining whether due diligence was observed in ensuring all relevant evidence was included.

• Outsourcing of Work: The inquiry must also investigate the circumstances under which the counter-affidavit was typed, including whether an outsider was involved in its preparation, and whether this was authorized by the Government Advocate.

• Ensuring Future Compliance: The Court also directed the State Government to submit an affidavit outlining the steps it will take to ensure that no suppression of facts or evidence occurs in future cases, and to ensure that the office of the Government Advocate operates with the highest standards of professionalism.

In addition to ordering the inquiry, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to expedite the ongoing inquiry against Sub-Inspector Rampal Singh, who was responsible for the initial counter-affidavit. The Court demanded a detailed report on the actions taken against the official and the findings of the inquiry.

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 12, 2024, by which time the results of the inquiry are expected to be presented.