Absence Of Information Cannot Be Treated As Police Officer’s Negligence: Allahabad HC

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed a censure entry imposed on a police officer over an explosion that killed two minor children, holding that the police act on information, and the absence of any intelligence reaching an officer cannot be equated with negligence in the discharge of his duty.

Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh were hearing a writ petition filed by Naresh Singh, who at the relevant time was the Chowki In-charge at Police Station Khatouli, District Muzaffarnagar, challenging a judgment dated 23.03.2026 of the Tribunal, which had rejected his claim petition against the punishment of a censure entry.

As per the record, a large quantity of explosives, including 1,732 kg of illegal firecrackers, 176 kg of raw material, 6 kg of saltpetre and 5 kg of gunpowder, was recovered on 07.11.2023 from the house of one Shadab and other co-accused at Village Kailawada, falling within the jurisdiction of the petitioner's outpost, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 286 IPC and Section 9B(1)(A) of the Explosives Act, 1884, and a chargesheet filed later that month. The petitioner had accompanied the Senior Sub-Inspector during this raid. Subsequently, on 22.01.2024, an explosion occurred at Shadab's house after he resumed collecting and manufacturing explosives, causing a concrete slab to fall and killing two minor children.

On these facts, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar issued a show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner, despite being aware of the earlier recovery, failed to inform higher authorities or take preventive action regarding the renewed collection of explosives, amounting to negligence, indiscipline and arbitrariness. The Tribunal upheld the resultant punishment of censure, reasoning that given the earlier recovery and the anticipated demand for firecrackers around the consecration of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple on 22.01.2024, it was the petitioner's bounden responsibility to keep strict vigil over the accused persons' houses, and that his explanation, that no information regarding the renewed manufacturing had reached him from neighbours, family members or the beat constable, did not absolve him.

Before the High Court, the petitioner maintained that he was not the Investigating Officer in the November 2023 case and had no information whatsoever of any subsequent collection of explosives. On the Court's specific query, learned Standing Counsel for the State was unable to point to any material on record showing that information regarding fresh stockpiling had in fact reached the police outpost.

The Court observed: “The Police do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act cannot be termed as negligence.”

Noting further that the record bore out the petitioner's prompt action once the explosion occurred, the Court held that the State had failed to demonstrate any dereliction of duty on the petitioner's part upon receipt of some information or intelligence regarding fresh stockpiling, and that the finding of negligence could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.03.2026, along with the resultant punishment, was set aside and quashed, and the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sharad Chand Upadhyay, Standing Counsel.

Case Title: Naresh Singh vs. The State of U.P. and 4 Others, Writ - A No. 10542 of 2026