Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Aftab Alam and S.P.Singh JJ.
Harendra Rai
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 717 of 2006 ;
Decided On : MARCH 13, 2007
Habeas Corpus - Abduction of Lalmuni Devi - Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sec.164 Cr.P.C. - Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 - Masrakh (Panapur) PS Case No. 62 of 1995 - Panapur PS Case No. 81 of 2006 - Masrakh PS case No. 129 of 2006 - [Summary of Acts and Sections discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the recovery and production of his mother, Lalmuni Devi, who was allegedly abducted to prevent her from being examined as a witness in a criminal trial. The petitioner alleged that his mother and father were forcibly abducted by the accused, including a sitting M.P., and despite his efforts to seek help from the local authorities, no action was taken to rescue them. The court directed for the production of the father and ordered that if the mother appeared before the trial court, the prosecution case should not be closed till further orders. Subsequently, the mother appeared before the trial court and made a deposition, but it was not normal and smooth, leading to a clash in the court room. The court adjourned the matter awaiting the result of an enquiry by the Inspecting judge. The alleged abduction gave rise to two cases, and the court directed for thorough investigation under the close supervision of the police. The mother later appeared before the court and filed a supplementary affidavit stating that she and her husband were abducted by the accused and were all along under their complete control. The court did not close the proceedings and ordered for her statement to be taken by a Magistrate. The police's investigation of the abduction cases was criticized, and the court entrusted the supervision of the case to another police official. The court received reports and an enquiry report, and the Supreme Court dismissed challenges to the orders. The court had before it materials related to the abduction of Lalmuni Devi and her husband, and the motive and purpose behind their abduction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deposition of Lalmuni Devi in the trial court was not voluntary and was made under duress and intimidation while she was fully under the control of the accused. The court also found that the trial proceedings were violently interfered with and the trial's sanctity was badly abused. The court concluded that the subversion of the trial was made possible only with the abetement, by acts of omission and commission, of those who were primarily responsible to ensure that it should be held independently, fairly and impartially. The court also noted the deplorable role of the Chapra Police with regard to the abduction of Lalmuni Devi.
Issues: The issues included the alleged abduction of Lalmuni Devi and her husband, the interference with the trial proceedings, the conduct of the police and the trial court, and the need for a fair and impartial trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deposition of Lalmuni Devi in the trial court was not voluntary and was made under duress and intimidation while she was fully under the control of the accused. The court also found that the trial proceedings were violently interfered with and the trial's sanctity was badly abused. The court concluded that the subversion of the trial was made possible only with the abetement, by acts of omission and commission, of those who were primarily responsible to ensure that it should be held independently, fairly and impartially.
Final Decision: The court directed the transfer of the trial from Bhagalpur to Patna, the appointment of a Special P.P. to conduct the trial, the scrapping of the deposition of Lalmuni Devi, and her re-examination before the trial court at Patna. The court also set aside the order closing the prosecution case and ordered the trial to proceed from the stage of examination of Lalmuni Devi as directed. The court further directed the placement of the report of the Inspecting Judge before the Standing Committee of the Court for consideration and suitable action, and the examination of the roles of the P.P. and the defence counsel by the Bihar State Bar Council.
Aftab Alam, J.
1. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for recovery and production of his mother, who according to him, was abducted to prevent her from being examined as witness in a criminal trial. In the writ petition many allegations are made mainly against Prabhunath Singh who is the sitting M.P. from Maharajganj constituency in the district of Chapra and who is described as one of the leaders of the ruling party in the State. It is stated that for the murder of the petitioners brother Rajendra Rai and one Daroga Rai [Masrakh (Panapur) PS case No. 62 of 1995], Prabhunath Singh along with some other accused was facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 in the court of the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The trial court had earlier closed the prosecution evidence even though some material eye-witnesses were not examined but on 23.10.2006 it allowed a petition filed under Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fixing 3.11.2006 as the last date for examining Lalmuni Devi, the mother of the petitioner and Rajendra Rai, one of the victims of murder.
2. It is alleged that on 24.10.2006 at about 1 P.M. Dinanath Singh the brother of Prabhunath Singh, Harendra Singh and some other accused persons descended on village Dhonuki, P.S. Panapur, Chapra armed with deadly weapons and forcibly abducted his mother Lalmuni Devi and father Rama Rai from their house. It was further stated that the petitioner went to Panapur P.S. and submitted a written report (Annexure 2) to the Officer Incharge informing about the abduction of his mother and father by the accused, including the brother of Prabhunath Singh, M.P. The Officer Incharge took the report but he neither registered a case nor took up investigation nor took any steps to rescue or recover the victims of abduction. The petitioner then went to the Superintendent of Police, Chapra and gave him a copy of the report that he had submitted before the Officer Incharge, Panapur P.S. and requested him to rescue his father and mother. But he too did not take any action. Thus, denied of any help at the local level the petitioner came to Patna and on 26.10.2006 submitted a written complaint (Annexure 3) to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. He sent copies of the complaint to the Chief Secretary and the Hone Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and the Home Secretary. Govt. of India but even then no action was taken to rescue and recover his mother. It was further stated that though the petitioners father Rama Rai was released by the accused on 23.10.2006, his mother continued to be in their custody. It was alleged by the petitioner that his mother Lalmuni Devi was being kept in confinement by Prabhunath Singh or his brother and henchmen and an apprehension was expressed that she would either be killed or made traceless or she would be made to depose in the trial as per their wishes. It was also alleged that in the past too several trials against Prabhunath Singh were similarly frustrated when setting no protection, despite repeated prayers, witnesses finally succumbed to the threats and pressure by him and were declared hostile before the court.
3. With the aforesaid statements and allegations the writ petition was filed before the court on 31.10.2006 and it was listed on 1.11.2006 when on the prayer of the Advocate General it was passed over for the day.
4. On 2.11.2006 the Advocate General stated before the court that on receiving report of abduction of Lalmuni Devi and Rama Rai the police started investigation but on 24.10.2006 itself Rama Rai appeared in the late hours and gave statements before the Officer Incharge and the Subdivisional Police Officer that apprehending some threat from different quarters he and his wife had gone underground for self protection. On coming to learn that a rumour was spread that they were abducted he had come forward to say that there was no t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
