Seized SUV Used in Police Raid Leads to Fatal Crash, Allahabad High Court Orders DGP Probe

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh DGP to conduct an independent and confidential inquiry into the unauthorized use of a seized vehicle in a police raid that caused a fatal accident.

Taking a grave view of police personnel taking an impounded vehicle out of police custody for an operational raid that ultimately resulted in a fatal road crash, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to initiate an independent and confidential inquiry. The matter involves a Mahindra XUV that had been seized in Bulandshahr district in connection with an excise case. Instead of remaining securely deposited in state custody, the vehicle was taken out to execute a raid against an absconding accused, only to meet with a fatal collision in Mathura three days later, causing the death of a woman. The High Court has set an eight-week deadline for the DGP to complete the probe and submit a comprehensive compliance report.

Justice Anil Kumar voiced strong displeasure over the police department's lenient internal handling of the incident. The court questioned why departmental proceedings against the personnel involved were abruptly closed with merely a censure entry on their service records. The bench observed that releasing and using a seized vehicle from police custody without lawful authority, breaching the solemn duty of safe custody, and subsequently getting involved in a fatal accident could not be treated as a routine procedural lapse.

The Seizure Over Illicit Liquor Transportation
The genesis of the case dates back to 16 April 2021, when officers from the Ramghat police station in Bulandshahr intercepted the Mahindra SUV. A search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 19 cartons of illicit liquor, prompting the police to confiscate the vehicle under relevant provisions of the excise law. The vehicle was parked at the police station while confiscation proceedings were underway. Under standard legal procedures, any property confiscated during a criminal investigation must remain in secure departmental custody until an appropriate court or magistrate orders its release or disposal.

However, while the confiscation process was pending, the vehicle was removed from the police station premises on 4 June 2021. According to submissions made by the state government before the High Court, the then Head Moharrir Sitaram, along with constables Pankaj Rana and Narendra Singh, took the vehicle out to conduct a raid aimed at apprehending a wanted accused. The state asserted that this unauthorized action was executed without the knowledge or sanction of the then Station House Officer Birendra Singh.

Fatal Collision in Mathura Three Days Later
Just three days after it was taken from the police station, on 7 June 2021, the vehicle met with a severe accident in the Raya area of Mathura district. The collision critically injured the parents of a man named Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar's mother subsequently succumbed to her injuries during treatment. Following the tragedy, the Mathura police registered a formal first information report regarding the accident and took the damaged SUV back into custody.

When the High Court scrutinized what disciplinary steps had been initiated against the responsible personnel, records revealed that the then Senior Superintendent of Police of Bulandshahr had wound up the departmental inquiry by simply awarding a censure entry to Head Moharrir Sitaram and both accompanying constables. No criminal liability was pursued, nor were stringent penalties imposed for the unauthorized extraction of a case exhibit from the police station.

Judicial Reprimand Over Disciplinary Whitewash
In an order passed on 22 September, Justice Anil Kumar severely criticized the punishment, observing that awarding merely a censure entry without considering the gravity of unauthorized use, its consequences, and potential criminal culpability appeared entirely inadequate on the face of the record. The court stated that the conduct went beyond an ordinary service infraction, encompassing the illegal removal of impounded property, gross dereliction of custodial care, and actions that culminated in the loss of human life.

The High Court specifically asked the DGP to examine whether the conduct of the police personnel attracts offenses under criminal statutes, such as theft, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust. While clarifying that it was not determining the final criminal guilt of any individual at this preliminary stage, the bench underlined that the objective of the independent inquiry is to establish the complete facts and determine accountability strictly in accordance with law.

Supervisory Accountability and Challenge to Seizure
The High Court directed that the scope of the DGP inquiry must not stop at subordinate personnel. The probe must scrutinize the supervisory oversight exercised by the then SHO Birendra Singh to ascertain how a seized vehicle could be driven away from the station premises without his knowledge. Additionally, the role of the then SSP of Bulandshahr will be evaluated to determine whether the earlier departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, objectively, and adequately.

In the same proceedings, the High Court rejected a petition filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging the initial seizure. The bench found that the seizure order itself suffered from no legal infirmity, given the recovery of 19 cartons of illicit liquor from the vehicle. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that the subsequent administrative handling of the vehicle revealed alarming failures within the policing system. The court cautioned that allowing seized property to be commandeered from police custody without legal authority, followed by token departmental penalties, severely erodes public faith in the criminal justice administration.

What this means for you
This judicial ruling establishes a strict precedent regarding the custodial protection of impounded vehicles and citizen rights against state misuse.

• Across India: The ruling reinforces the legal protection of citizen property held in state custody, preventing police personnel from treating seized assets as operational resources. It sets a benchmark across states to review custodial property protocols and prevent unauthorised movement of evidentiary vehicles.
• In Uttar Pradesh: The DGP investigation will prompt immediate administrative audits across all police stations to inspect seized vehicles and ensure they remain securely documented. Station house officers across the state will face heightened personal responsibility and potential criminal charges if confiscated properties go missing or get used informally.
• For ordinary road users: Families affected by accidents caused by state machinery or personnel using impounded vehicles now have a clear judicial precedent demanding full criminal accountability rather than superficial departmental inquiries. This discourages reckless, unrecorded driving of vehicles under the guise of urgent operational requirements.
• For vehicle owners: Citizens whose vehicles are impounded during investigations gain legal leverage to demand safety guarantees against wear, tear, or misuse of their assets while in police custody. Owners can cite this ruling to hold the police administration accountable if an impounded asset is damaged or mishandled prior to court disposal.

Why this happened
The controversy arose from the flagrant disregard of statutory property rules by police personnel, a breakdown of station level supervision, and subsequent administrative leniency. Instead of keeping the impounded vehicle in safe custody, officers unlawfully deployed it for operational duties, leading directly to a fatal collision.

• Excise seizure in Bulandshahr: On 16 April 2021, the Ramghat police seized the Mahindra SUV after recovering 19 cartons of illicit liquor from it. The law mandated that the vehicle remain untouched in police station custody pending judicial or statutory confiscation orders.
• Unauthorized deployment for a raid: On 4 June 2021, a head clerk and two constables took the impounded vehicle out of the station to conduct a raid on a wanted suspect without lawful authorization. The state submitted that this operational use took place without the knowledge of the station house officer.
• Fatal crash in Mathura: Just three days later, on 7 June 2021, the vehicle met with a severe accident in the Raya area of Mathura, fatally injuring Manoj Kumar's mother and critically injuring his father. Mathura police registered an FIR and seized the vehicle again as an accident exhibit.
• Leniency in departmental inquiry: The then SSP of Bulandshahr concluded internal proceedings by merely handing out a censure entry to the guilty officers. The Allahabad High Court deemed this outcome wholly inadequate and ordered the DGP to probe potential criminal culpability including theft and breach of trust.

Questions & Answers

1. What has the Allahabad High Court directed the UP DGP to do?
The High Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh DGP to conduct an independent, confidential inquiry within eight weeks into the unauthorized use of a seized SUV that caused a fatal accident.

2. Why was the Mahindra SUV originally confiscated by the police?
The vehicle was seized on 16 April 2021 by Ramghat police in Bulandshahr after 19 cartons of illicit liquor were found inside it.

3. How was the seized SUV taken out of the police station?
On 4 June 2021, the then head clerk and two constables took the vehicle out without authorization to conduct a police raid to arrest a wanted criminal.

4. What casualties occurred in the Mathura road accident?
On 7 June 2021, the SUV met with a crash in Raya, Mathura, critically injuring the parents of Manoj Kumar, with his mother later succumbing to her injuries.

5. Why did the High Court criticize the departmental action taken earlier?
The court found that simply awarding a censure entry on service records was grossly inadequate considering the gravity of the unauthorized use and the loss of life.

6. Did the High Court quash the original vehicle seizure order?
No, the court dismissed the vehicle owner's plea, ruling that the initial seizure for carrying illicit liquor was legally valid despite severe administrative mishandling later.

https://trendkia.com/en/uttar-pradesh/thane-se-jabta-gari-raid-men-le-gai-pulisa-hadase-men-mahila-ki-jana-jane-para-high-court-ne-dgp-ko-saunpi-jancha-38809
TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.