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
| 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
Air India Statutory Corporation and others vs. United Labour Union & Ors.
Association for Protection of Democratic Rights Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Bimal Gurung vs Union Of India
Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
D.K. Basu Vs. State Of West Bengal
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana
Dwarka Nath vs. Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur and another
K. Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 79
Prof. K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai & Ors.
Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 677.
Rubabuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 200
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar & Another
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2008 SC 907:(2008 AIR SCW 309)
Sudipta Lenka Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.