Furkan vs State of Up — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Furkan vs State of Up — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No order on bail; the Court summoned the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police to assist in rectifying the criminal-history reporting anomaly, directed the concerned Investigating Officer to appear in person with records, directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the ADG through the Registrar (Compliance), and listed the case as fresh on 10.03.2026.

Issue for consideration

How the anomaly of under-reporting of the applicant's criminal antecedents — five cases shown in the DCRB report for District Aligarh against twelve cases mentioned in the case diary — can be rectified. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant obtained bail in other cases on the strength of a five-case criminal history while the case diary disclosed twelve cases; the fraud appears to have occurred due to negligence on the part of the concerned Investigating Officer as well as the police department.

Ratio / Principle

The Court summoned the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police, to assist the Court as to how the anomaly in reporting the applicant's criminal antecedents can be rectified.

Key takeaways

The Investigating Officer who supplied the instructions to the learned A.G.A. is to appear before the Court in person along with the relevant records on the next date.ratio¶¶14
The case is to be put up as fresh on 10.03.2026, on which date the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police, is to appear through video conferencing at 10:00 a.m. and the Investigating Officer in person.ratio¶¶16
The Court observed that this is not the first case in which an Investigating Officer, while supplying instructions, mentioned only a few cases on the basis of the DCRB report and the applicant was later found involved in several other cases.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application — criminal antecedents — discrepancy between DCRB report, District Aligarh (five registered cases) and case diary (twelve cases in different districts) — Investigating Officer supplied instructions to the A.G.A. on the basis of the DCRB chart showing only five cases — Court observed applicant had obtained bail in other cases claiming a five-case history while wanted in twelve, and that the fraud appeared to result from negligence of the Investigating Officer and the police department, and that this was not the first such instance — Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police summoned to assist the Court on rectification of the anomaly; concerned IO to appear in person with relevant records; ADG to appear by video conferencing at 10:00 a.m. on 10.03.2026; copy of order to Registrar (Compliance) — bail not decided; case listed as fresh on 10.03.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6607 of 2026

Furkan

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shravan Kumar Patel	Singh, Umesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 69

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of five cases.

At this stage, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection that though in the DCRB report, five cases have been shown to be registered against the applicant in District Aligarh but in the case diary it is mentioned that the applicant is involved in 12 cases in different districts. It is surprising that though the concerned Investigating Officer mentioned in the case diary that 12 cases are registered against the applicant but at the time of sending the instructions, only five cases have been shown against the applicant by the Investigating Officer to learned A.G.A. on the basis of the chart prepared by the In-Charge, DCRB, Aligarh. The record also shows that the applicant has obtained bail in different other cases claiming that he has explained the criminal history of five cases, though he is wanted in 12 cases. This fraud appears to have occurred due to negligence on the part of the concerned Investigating Officer as well as the police department. This is not the first case where this Court has come across such a situation wherein the Investigating Officer, while supplying instructions, mentioned a few cases on the basis of the DCRB report and subsequently it was found that applicant was involved in several other cases also.

In such circumstances, this Court has no option but to summon the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police, to assist the

BAIL No. 6607 of 2026

2

Court as to how this anomaly can be rectified.

On the next date, the concerned Investigating Officer, who has supplied the instructions to learned A.G.A., shall also appear before this Court in person along with the relevant records.

Put up this case as fresh on 10.03.2026.

On that date, the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police, shall appear through video conferencing at 10:00 a.m., and the concerned Investigating Officer shall also appear in person before this Court.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Director General, Technical Services, U.P. Police, through the Registrar (Compliance).

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

February 23, 2026 SA

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad