Allahabad High Court Rebukes Police For Concealing Evidence In Mahant Mukesh Giri Case

The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious dissatisfaction with the police’s handling of evidence in the case involving Mahant Mukesh Giri, who is accused of filming women bathing at Ganganagar Ghat in Ghaziabad. The court has directed the Chief Secretary to ensure that the investigation is conducted by a Principal Secretary-level officer and has mandated the submission of a sealed report by September 12.

Justice Vikram D. Chauhan issued this order in response to an anticipatory bail application filed by Mukesh Giri. The court had previously instructed the Muradnagar police to file a counter-affidavit along with the evidence collected against Giri. However, Inspector Rampal Singh submitted only news reports and letters from the Women’s Commission, omitting concrete evidence.

Also Read: Uttar Pradesh Accelerates Solar Energy Push Amid Rising Electricity Demand And Prices

The court questioned how the letters and news reports could be considered substantial evidence against the accused. It also requested an affidavit from the Ghaziabad Deputy Commissioner of Police regarding the inspector’s role in this matter. Despite departmental action being initiated against the inspector for submitting a misleading affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to provide satisfactory answers to the court’s inquiries.

Necessary Evidence

In light of these issues, the court ordered the Chief Secretary to oversee the investigation by a Principal Secretary-level officer. The court has also criticized the functioning of the police department, the prosecution office, and the government advocate’s office. It questioned whether the Director of Prosecution and Government Advocate Office had received all the necessary evidence and whether they had requested additional information.

The court raised concerns about the preparation of the counter-affidavit, questioning whether it was typed from a government treasury or by an external typist, and who was responsible for drafting it. It also demanded clarification on whether the Director of Prosecution Office and Government Advocate Office reviewed the facts before preparing their responses.

The court’s stringent directives aim to address the negligence and ensure that accurate facts are presented in court. A detailed report on the investigation is expected by September 12, addressing these critical concerns.