'Chalta Hai' Attitude Dangerous To Rule Of Law; State Biggest Hurdle In Expeditious Disposal Of Bail Matters: Uttarakhand High Court

Slamming the state government's lackadaisical attitude in a bail matter, the Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that the state is one of the biggest hurdles in the expeditious disposal of bail matters.

The bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani also came down heavily on the state government's 'chalta hai' attitude as it observed that such an attitude of the state in bail matters is dangerous to the rule of law.

Essentially, the bench was dealing with a bail plea filed by an accused booked under Section 384, 323, 504, 506 & 34 IPC on the allegations that he, in connivance with a woman, got a false case of molestation lodged against the informant so as to extract money from him.

As per the statement of the informant, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, an audio recording of the conversation between the applicant and the woman, who lodged a false case of molestation against the informant was stored in a pen drive and the same was given to the Investigating Officer by the informant.

Now, when the applicant/accused moved the instant bail plea, a counter affidavit was filed by the IO in the case, however, in the entire counter affidavit, there was no mention of the audio recording.

Further, when the court directed for the filing of counter affidavits with requisite details, the prosectuion failed to do so despite being gievn several chances. In view of this, the Court made the following stern remark:

"Was not it a very important piece of evidence? Where is that pen-drive, which, according to the informant (statement under Section 161 of the Code) was given to the IO by the informant? Has it been sent for forensic examination? Has any certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was taken by the IO? Has it been made part of the investigation? These all are not placed before the Court...This Court has umpteen times expressed concern that the State is not cooperating in the disposal of the case. State is one of the biggest hurdle in expeditious disposal in the bail matters. After 4 dates, the state failed to file short counter affidavit. There is no response as to why they failed. The transcript of the pendrive is not on record, which is a necessary piece of evidence...if the pen-drive, its contents, have not been a part of evidence; if the pen-drive, which the informant allegedly gave to the IO, was not sent for forensic examination; if the IO has failed to obtain a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not it a lapse on the part of the IO? And if it is, who is observing it? Who is monitoring it? Perhaps none."

Against this backdrop, te Court observed that the state of affairs, exhibited by the State in the instant case reflected nothing but, "chalta hai attitude", which, the Court noted, is dangerous to the rule of law. The Court also noted that the State is quite indifferent to see that the bail application may get expeditious disposal.

Consequently, the Court directed that a copy of the Court's order be sent to Senior Superintendent Police, Udham Singh Nagar and asked him to file a short counter affidavit personally and appear before the Court to answer the questions, which have been raised in this order.

The Court also requested the Principal Secretary, Law Cum Legal Remembrancer to examine the issue and submit a report to the Court on or before the next date fixed as to what action has been taken to ensure that it is not done in the future and what action has been taken against the officer, who failed to file short counter affidavit on time.

"The Court expects that it should not be a mere formality. If somebody has failed, strict actions, as per law, should be taken," the Court further remarked as it posted the matter for further hearing on September 27, 2022.