SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Amar Nath Poddar Son of Shri Hari Lal Poddar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.68 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Manas Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.G., Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4, Mr. Nadim Seraj, GP-5, Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-4

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Investigation by CBI - Petition for an independent investigation into the shooting death of petitioner’s unarmed son during a police operation - Allegations of failure to follow police procedure and unlawful use of force - Petitioner sought compensation from the state for the death - High Court emphasized the need for free and fair investigation and awarded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to petitioner, criticizing police inquiry’s lack of due diligence. (Paras 1, 87-96)

(B) Procedural Fairness - Duty of police to register FIR and conduct thorough investigations - Court noted substantial lapses in investigating officer's actions, and failures to follow the Bihar Police Manual - Emphasized the need for credible independent investigations in cases involving police misconduct. (Paras 51, 63, 84)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s son was shot and killed during a police firing incident at a religious procession in Munger on 26.10.2020, while he was peacefully watching the festivities. The family alleged police misconduct, including a failure to register a timely FIR against police personnel involved.

Findings of Court:
Court found that the investigation up to that point was inadequate and ordered that the case be handed to the CID for a thorough inquiry under judicial supervision, mandating a report back to the court within four weeks.

Issues: The primary concerns were whether the alleged misconduct by police necessitated an independent investigation, fears of bias from police involvement, and the delay in registering an FIR regarding the police's actions.

Ratio Decidendi: High Court stressed that where police personnel are implicated in crimes, an independent investigation must instill public confidence to ensure justice. The existing police investigation was deemed insufficient, leading to the decision to appoint the CID for a thorough inquiry.

Result: Petition partly allowed, awarding Rs.10 lakhs compensation to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. commencement of the case and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. state's responses and procedural background (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
4. principles regarding handling of police misconduct investigations (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
5. award of compensation and directive orders (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98)

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ application has been preferred for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “C.B.I.”) to conduct a free, fair, independent and effective investigation, in a time bound manner, under monitoring of this Court; further prayer has been made to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to immediately disburse a compensation of Rs. 5 crore to the petitioner, for the brutal killing of the young son of the petitioner in the alleged police firing. Petitioner has prayed for such other order(s) or relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Case of the Petitioner

2. Briefly stating, it is the case of the petitioner that on 26.10.2020 while his son namely Anurag Kumar, aged about 18 years was peacefully watching the procession of immersion of Maa Durga idol, he was killed in a police firing. The petitioner alleged that the police personnel led by the then Superintendent of Police (S.P.) of Munger, namely, Ms. Lipi Singh was insisting the procession for hurriedly completing the Maa Durga idol immersion in the night itself without following the traditional hierarchical procession which led to a chaos. The son of the petitioner was present in the immersion procession near DCM Showroom at Deen Dayal Chowk and he was peacefully watching the Maa Durga idol immersion procession. He was completely unarmed and was peacefully standing at that place, out of his devotion.

3. The petitioner has alleged that the Munger Police led by the then S.P. did not follow the procedures provided under the Bihar Police Manual in the matter of resorting to firing on a crowd, they indulged in indiscriminate and brutal firing on the Maa Durga Devi devotees. The petitioner has named one Sushil Kumar Singh, a police officer, who was officer in-charge of Basudevpur Outpost and it is alleged that he had fired upon the son of the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the photographs of the body of his son lying in his mother’s lap to submit that it was a brutal murder in the hand of the police who resorted to firing unauthorizedly and without putting a word of caution to crowd.

4. The petitioner refers to the video footage which emerged in the social and electronic media in which few officials of Munger Police and also a person in white cloth (later on identified as one Kumar Krishna) were seen brutally beating the innocent and unarmed Maa Durga devotees near an idol, in the middle of the road. He has also placed before this Court the internal report of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called ‘CISF’) which states that the bullet firing was initiated by Munger Police. A copy of the newspaper report has been brought on record as Annexure ‘4’. It is stated that two days after the alleged incident, the then S.P., namely, Ms. Lipi Singh and the then District Magistrate were transferred under order of the Election Commission of India.

Lodgment of F.I.R.

5. It is stated that on 27.10.2020 the post-mortem of the petitioner’s son was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Munger where his cause of death was mentioned as injuries caused by firearm. Petitioner has alleged that while the petitioner was receiving the body of his so

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    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

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top