24 Sep 2003
Order issued
ConcludedThe Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-39
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2003-0008Mathura, Uttar PradeshJudgment 24 September 2003
Ashok Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the dismissal of Constable Ashok Kumar, who was on court lock-up duty at Mathura on 13 June 2000 when hardened criminal Prakash, accused in about fifteen cases including murders, escaped from custody. The enquiry found the petitioner acted in complicity with co-constable [name withheld] and allowed the escape after accepting a bribe, a charge supported by the re-arrested criminal deposition and the petitioner own signed statement, with Case Crime No. 91 of 2000 under Sections 223 and 224 IPC registered. The Court held the SSP satisfaction for dispensing with a full enquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) of the 1991 Rules was based on material on record and neither arbitrary nor mala fide. It declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. No PC Act trial was involved; the bribe finding is disciplinary only. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 24 September 2003, the Allahabad High Court upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Ashok Kumar (Constable).
- Register number
- UP 85 CW 0001
- Case reference
- LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-39
- Court and date
- Allahabad High Court, 24 September 2003
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Ashok Kumar (Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 311 of the Constitution of India; Rule 8(2)(b) of the UP Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The Senior Superintendent of Police found that petitioner was in complicity with the criminal who made good his escape. He was subsequently apprehended and deposed that he had given bribe to petitioner.” (at para 8)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Allahabad High Court judgment dated 24 September 2003 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“The Senior Superintendent of Police found that petitioner was in complicity with the criminal who made good his escape. He was subsequently apprehended and deposed that he had given bribe to petitioner.” (para 8)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.