Allahabad HC Orders Inquiry Into Alleged Non-Disclosure Of Evidence By UP Police In Case Against Mahant Mukesh Giri

The Allahabad High Court has initiated an inquiry into the Uttar Pradesh Police, the office of the Director of Prosecution, and the office of the Government Advocate over their alleged failure to disclose crucial evidence in a case involving Mahant Mukesh Giri, who is accused of secretly filming women while they were bathing.

The Court expressed serious concerns over the prosecution's inability to present key evidence as previously directed, labelling the omission as an interference in the dispensation of justice.

The inquiry, as ordered by the Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, is to be conducted by an officer of at least the rank of Principal Secretary, who will be nominated by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The inquiry will examine the roles of the police and prosecution in withholding vital information.

The case revolves around Mahant Mukesh Giri, who was accused of recording videos of women while they were bathing, using a hidden camera. The allegations came to light in May 2024, when a woman discovered a CCTV camera in the changing room at a ghat in Ghaziabad's Muradnagar area. An initial police investigation allegedly found several inappropriate videos on Giri's mobile phone, including live feeds from the CCTV camera installed at the ghat.

In response to these allegations, Giri filed for anticipatory bail. On July 5, 2024, the High Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit disclosing all evidence found during the investigation. Despite this order, the State's counter-affidavit, filed on July 15, failed to include any evidence, even though it confirmed that the accused had committed the alleged offense. The only document annexed was a letter from the National Commission for Women, which the court deemed insufficient as evidence.

On August 8, 2024, the Court had directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to explain why the previous court order had not been complied with and to identify the official responsible for the incomplete affidavit. Subsequently, the Commissioner filed an affidavit on August 23, informing the Court that proceedings had been initiated against the Sub-Inspector who filed the initial affidavit. However, the affidavit still failed to explain why the relevant evidence had been suppressed.

The Court highlighted that the police, the Director of Prosecution, and the Government Advocate's office all have roles in ensuring that instructions are properly prepared and that necessary evidence is disclosed in Court filings. The Bench noted that all three levels failed to comply with the court's order when filing the initial counter-affidavit, despite the seriousness of the allegations against Giri. "There are three levels of check to find out whether the instructions have been properly prepared or not. The first level is the police department itself. The second level is Director of Prosecution and the third level is the office of the Government Advocate. Neither the three levels have taken pain at the time of filing of previous counter affidavit to comply with the order of the Court despite the fact that there are serious allegation against the applicant and the matter was required to be taken up by the authorities concerned," it said. 

The Bench remarked, "The office of Director of Prosecution cannot act like a post office, they have to examine instructions to find out whether the necessary averments have been stated and evidence has been enclosed along with the affidavit as required. Even police department owes a duty to fairly disclose all the material while filing the affidavit. Such duty has not been discharged by the police department in the earlier counter affidavit."

The Court has outlined a detailed inquiry process to examine the circumstances surrounding the non-disclosure of evidence.The inquiry will address several key issues, including whether the police department sent the required evidence to the offices of the Director of Prosecution and Government Advocate, and if not, why they failed to do so. The inquiry will also investigate whether the prosecution and Government Advocate's office made any effort to obtain the necessary evidence from the police.

The inquiry will further explore who was responsible for drafting, typing, and filing the counter-affidavit on July 15, 2024, and whether any remuneration was paid for these services from the State exchequer. The Court emphasized that the office of the Director of Prosecution cannot act merely as a conduit but must scrutinize the instructions and evidence provided by the police.

Additionally, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to complete the ongoing inquiry against the Sub-Inspector who filed the initial affidavit and to submit a report on the matter. "The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is hereby directed to complete the inquiry pending against the deponent of the earlier counter affidavit forthwith and submit an affidavit in this respect. List on 12th September, 2024 in top ten cases," the Court ordered. 

Cause Title: Mukesh Giri v. State of UP and Ors.

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocates Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar, Uttar Kumar Goswami, Vijay Pratap

Opposite Party: Advocates Deepak Rana, Noor Saba Begum

Click here to read/download the Order