Annual Report 2009-2010 a moving train going from Mallani to Gonda by the Constables of the Government Railway Police (GRP) when she failed to pay a bribe of Rs.100/- for travelling without a ticket. The pregnant woman died and the accompanying child was hurt in the incident. 4.62 On receipt of a report from the Director General of Police, Lucknow, it was learnt by the Commission that in the given incident a Crime Case No.45/09 u/s 304/383/384 IPC had been registered against the Constables at the GRP Station in Lakhimpur and relevant action was being taken against the erring police personnel. The Commission found the act of the policemen as a clear violation of human rights and accordingly directed the Chief Secretary, Government of U�ar Pradesh to show-cause as to why interim relief should not be recommended in the case. The Government of U�ar Pradesh, on its part, agreed that the commi�ed act amounted to violation of human rights and payment of interim relief is justified. 4.63 The Commission in its proceedings dated 16 November 2009 thus directed that a payment of Rs.3,00,000/- be made to the next of kin of the deceased. The compliance report, along with the proof of payment, is awaited from the State Government. 11. Torture and False Implication of a Press Reporter by U�ar Pradesh Police (Case No.14303/24/2006-2007) 4.64 The case relates to victimization of a Press Reporter, named Samiuddin alias Neelu, by police officials belonging to Lakhimpur Khiri District of U�ar Pradesh since 2006. The Press Reporter has been fighting a lone ba�le against the misuse of authority by the then Superintendent of Police of Lakhimpur Khiri and others. The most paradoxical part of this case was the overall approach that was adopted by the State administration including the senior police officials. The State violated Samiuddin alias Neelu’s human rights by implicating him in a false case which led to his arrest, and protected the police officials, especially the Superintendent of Police, Ms. N. Padmaja. 4.65 What was worse is that when Samiuddin approached the concerned officers for redressal of his grievances, he was deprived of his due right to be heard. As a result, he was unable to evoke a considerate response from the State. That his life was also in danger is evident from the fact that the State Police extended him security from 4 April 2006 to 15 May 2007. The security was later withdrawn by the State for reasons best known to it. The case is a stark example of total apathy and out-right antagonism of the State towards a person, whose right to life was seriously endangered. 4.66 In response to the notice issued to the Government of U�ar Pradesh by the Commission, the Secretary to the Government of U�ar Pradesh vide his le�er dated 10 November 2009 admi�ed that there was apparent violation of human rights of Samiuddin alias Neelu. 4.67 Taking all the above factors into consideration, the Commission recommended to the Government of U�ar Pradesh that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be paid as monetary relief to Samiuddin alias Neelu under section 18 (a)(i) of the PHRA. 4.68 The compliance report along with proof of payment is awaited from the Government of U�ar Pradesh. 26 NHRC