The central legal point established in the judgment is the failure of police officers to adhere to legal procedures, leading to an illegal seizure and the court's intervention to rectify the situation.

1. To act as a police officer is not an act of heroism. This case demonstrates how a person in power can demolish the rule of law and a common citizen may be harassed to the extent it is possible. This is a case in which as back as on 10.03.2016 the petitioner was allegedly apprehended while he made a firing from his rifle and that firing was allegedly made while the petitioner was in intoxicated condition. He was brought to the police station and his licensee rifle was seized. He was taken to Patna Medical College Hospital (P.M.C.H.) where doctor found him conscious, but smell of wine was coming from his mouth. Since there was no facility to analyze the blood sample in the P.M.C.H. the doctor provided the blood sample to the investigating officer to get it examined from somewhere else.

2. The investigating officer came back with the blood sample but did not take any action to proceed further. The petitioner was released from the police station and rifle in question remained under seizure, but without reporting the incident to the court of learned C.J.M. at Patna within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place and the seizure was made. No report of seizure was submitted to the court of learned C.J.M. and it transpires now from the submissions that the rifle remained in the Malkhana, under what condition is still not known.

3. In these circumstances, when the petitioner moved this Court and a counter affidavit was called for, the factual position as stated above emerged from the records.

4. The officer in-charge of Jakkanpur police station as well as the then officer in-charge and the investigating officer were summoned to this Court to explain the circumstances under which neither any F.I.R. was lodged nor any seizure was reported and submitted to the court of learned C.J.M., Patna.

5. When the officers appeared before this Court and the Sanha Diary register was produced it was found that an entry has been made in the register vide Sanha diary entry no.408 dated 10.03.2016 wherein the facts and circumstances under which the petitioner was brought to the police station are fully stated. The officers were thereafter directed to file their affidavits explaining the circumstances in terms of the order dated 08.01.2018. The affidavits have been filed. The investigating officer has stated in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 as under:-

“8. That it is stated that by the time the deponent received the blood sample from the PMCH, it was about 1.45 am [night] on 11.03.2016 and he tried to submit the blood sample at appropriate pathological lab but all the labs were closed. So the deponent returned to police station and kept the blood sample at an appropriate place for giving the sample for analysis to a pathological lab in day time but unfortunately said sample missed out and deponent did not find it at the place where he kept and the analysis of the blood sample of this petitioner could not be given to analytical lab.

9. That it is stated that in the meantime on 11.03.2016 after taking personal bond petitioner was released without instituting FIR because nobody came to the police station to lodge an FIR against the petitioner and during primary enquiry any malafide on the part of petitioner was not transpired during primary enquiry and interrogation and petitioner was found to be an ex-army man with no criminal antecedent and was carrying valid license of seized arms.

10. It is humbly stated that only mistake on the part of this deponent is that he could not get analyzed the blood sample of the petitioner as he could not trace the blood sample placed in the police station which is nothing but an unintentional act on the part of this deponent due to which any further action in the matter could not be taken at the police station level. For this the deponent tenders unconditional and unqualified apologies and undertakes before this Hon’ble Court that in future no such mistake would be repeated and would be cautious in such sensitive matte