PRAYAGRAJ, March 20 -- The Allahabad high court, while hearing a PIL in the Noida techie death case, has asked the NDRF and SDRF to apprise it with the steps taken for the rescue of the victim, Yuvraj Mehta, and also the training received by both the response teams for preparation of emergencies. The bench comprising justice MC Tripathi and justice Kunal Ravi Singh was hearing a PIL on the death of Mehta, who died in the early hours of January 17 after his car plunged into a deep, waterlogged excavation pit on a vacant plot in Sector 150. Mehta, a software engineer, was returning home from his office in Gurugram when he reportedly lost control of his vehicle in dense fog, broke through a low boundary at a sharp 90-degree turn, and fell into the pit. "Fire brigade, SDRF and NDRF also reached there. Before drowning, there was a substantial period of time, in which, rescue could have been attempted. It is not in dispute that as per the pleadings set up before us, the expert teams of SDRF and NDRF were available at the site. Even though the responses have been filed by the Authority and the State, till date no response of SDRF and NDRF is filed," the court added. Counsels for the state government and the NDRF sought an adjournment to apprise the court. On this, the court fixed March 20 as the next date of hearing in the case, saying: "We expect that the responses are to be filed within two days and the affidavit be served upon to the petitioner in person on or before the next date fixed in the matter. It is also expected that the responses must indicate the steps taken for rescue and also the training received by both the response teams for preparation of emergencies. The response must also indicate the details of the team present at the site along with the name of the commanding officer of the said teams." The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to browbeat judicial magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly uncomfortable cases are passed by them. In this backdrop, a division bench comprising justice JJ Munir and justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi said in its March 9 order: "The magistrate also should not feel hesitant in passing necessary orders, merely because at some point of time, a highhanded police officer has caused some inconvenience to the magistrate. If, in fact, any kind of embarrassment or pressure from any police officer is faced by the magistrate, it is always open to him/her to make a contempt reference to this court." The observation came from the court while summarily dismissing a criminal writ petition concerning the registration of an FIR in Farrukhabad district. The petitioner sought a direction to the SP, Farrukhabad, to decide his representation dated August 19, 2025, for lodging of an FIR in a time-bound manner....