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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Cr. WJC No.130 of 2017
(12.12.2022)
Usha Sharma ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: M/s Amit Narayan, Abhigyan Kumar, Jeetendra Narayan.
For the State : Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj.
For Resp. No. 6 : M/s A.K. Thakur, Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh.
For Resp. Nos. 7 & 8 : M/s Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Kumar.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Crime investigation – Proper, fair and impartial investigation is heart and soul of criminal justice system – It has been recognised as a part of fundamental right embodied under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Husband of petitioner was shot dead – Petitioner is questioning conduct of investigating agency in keeping investigation of case pending for eight years – Accused has no right to choose an investigating agency of his choice and in an appropriate case a constitutional court may direct transfer of investigation – There are sufficient foundation of facts in writ application justifying grievance of petitioner against abnormal delay on part of C.I.D. in investigating into allegations – To instil confidence in investigation of case and to do justice, investigation transferred to C.B.I. (Paras 28, 34, 38, 40, 45 and 46)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed questioning the conduct of the Investigating Officer of the Criminal Investigation Department, (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.I.D.’) Bihar in the matter of release of the accused on P.R. bond post issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest by the competent court and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 269-271/2015 (Usha Sharma versus Shambhu Sharan Singh & Anr. Etc.Etc.) cancelling the privilege of anticipatory bail granted to the private respondent nos. 6 to 8 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

3. The petitioner has, while questioning the conduct of the investigating agency in keeping the investigation of the case pending for eight years, prayed for arrest of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 and also prayed for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to under the law.

Brief facts of the case

4. The husband of the petitioner was shot dead while he was sitting in the verandah of his residence and reading the newspaper on 02.08.2014 at 6:45 A.M. at Lakhisarai. Petitioner is the informant of the case who alleged that she heard sound of firing and when she went to the verandah, she found that her husband’s head was injured with bullet and blood was oozing out from his left eye and a young person with a pistol in his hand was fleeing towards the main gate and another person was waiting outside on a black motorcycle. She identified both of them.

5. According to the petitioner, her husband was the Secretary of the Balika Vidyapeeth. In August, 2009 one Anil Sharma, MD Amrapali group had usurped the trust of Balika Vidyapeeth with help of Rajendra Prasad Singhania (Respondent No.8), Dr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Shyam Sunder Prasad (Respondent No.7) and Shambhu Sharan Singh (Respondent No.6). Her husband was removed forcibly and thereafter a dispute was going on between both the parties. She alleged that the income of Balika Vidyapith were being usurped by opening a personal account operated by Dr. Praveen Kumar Sinha and Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh. To take over the control of the school one Smt. Anita Singh was brought and given charge of the post of Principal. The deceased was making complaint against the unlawful manner in which the Balika Vidyapith was being run. She alleged that in past also her residential house was attacked, damaged and firings were made which were duly informed to the different authorities by her husband.

6. The informant alleged that her husband was being regularly threatened and being asked to leave Lakhisarai failing which there will be dire consequences. Her husband had succeeded from the Hon’ble High Court at Patna and his claim as Secretary was found legal, on that basis the Government of Bihar had given recognition to the committee constituted by her husband. Her husband had lodged case against the opening of personal account in which the school money was deposited and in the said case the accused persons were likely to be convicted.

It is, then alleged that her husband was having threat to his life and in this regard he was told that the accused persons may go to any extent to stop him. She alleged that to take control over the entire land and properties of the Balika Vidyapith, the accused persons have hatched a conspiracy whereunder her husband has been murdered. On 04.07.2014, to examine the complaint made by the husband of the petitioner, a team of CBSE was likely to visit to examine the illegalities and in order to stop them the accused persons killed her husband.

7. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the petitioner Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 was registered under Section 302, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The materials available on the record would reveal that in course of investigation three persons were arrested, they were put to T.I. Parade in which this petitioner identified the a

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