The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the repeated practice of the police submitting reports stating that the accused is “untraceable” or “could not be located”, observing that such stereotyped and evasive reports pose a serious obstruction to the smooth functioning of the judicial process.
The Court categorically clarified:
“The Police are not a postal agency to look for an accused or a convict against whom process of this Court is issued at his address specified in the cause papers. It is their duty to search out the accused or the convict, so to speak a fugitive from justice………..They would have to locate him in any part of the country that he is hiding from the law.”
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Chawan Prakash while hearing a petition concerning the surviving appellant Ram Saran in a criminal appeal pending since 1988.
The background of the case reveals that originally the appeal was filed by two appellants. Following the death of another appellant Jai Pal, the appeal stood abated in his regard, leaving Ram Saran as the sole surviving appellant. When the matter was taken up for hearing, neither Ram Saran nor any counsel appeared before the Court. Consequently, by order dated 19 November 2025, the High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, to ensure service of notice upon Ram Saran in all events, and further directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, to ensure that service did not fail under any circumstances.
However, in the compliance report submitted thereafter, the police informed the Court that Ram Saran had allegedly sold his movable and immovable property about 25–26 years ago and had left the village along with his family, and that his present whereabouts were unknown.
Taking strong exception to the said report, the Court held that the police cannot absolve themselves of their statutory responsibility by merely stating that the accused has gone elsewhere. The Bench cautioned that:
“If this stand of the respondents, particularly the Police, were accepted, the entire edifice of the criminal justice system will crumble. No bail can be granted to the accused pending trial or convict pending appeal…………”
The Court further observed that merely apprising District Superintendents of Police and Police Commissioners of the correct legal position has failed to yield results, as similar careless and stereotyped reports continue to be filed in such matters.
Considering the seriousness of the situation, the Court issued a stern warning that alternative arrangements may have to be devised, including:
“Depriving the Police of some of their duties, in order to execute processes and ensure smooth functioning of this Court and the Trial Courts.”
In its concluding observations, the High Court held that judicial process can be returned unserved only in two contingencies – either the accused is dead, or has left the country, and only when such facts are supported by cogent evidence placed before the Court.
The Court further made it clear that if the appellant is not produced before it on the next date of hearing, it would be compelled to summon the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, and the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. All together, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellant, with a direction to trace him from any part of the country and produce him in custody before the Court on 19 December 2025.
Case: Ram Saran And Others vs State
