Rajan Sah @ Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Pat) 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Cr. WJC No.936 of 2021
(5.12.2022)
Rajan Sah @ Rajan Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hans Lal Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj.
For C.B.I. : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Constitution of India – Article 15(3) read with Article 39(f) and Articles 21 and 226 – Crime investigation – Minor girl missing since 16.02.2021 – I.O. did not examine telephonic talks with alleged suspects had with informant – Case diary does not show that any Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted in this matter – Sensitization expected on part of investigating agency is apparently missing in this case – Right to speedy and proper investigation of a case has been formed part of fundamental rights embodied under Article 21 of Constitution of India – In this State, there is no special investigating agency to deal with case of kidnapping of minor girl/child – Crime against women and children is required to be dealt by trained police personnel – State has a bounden duty under Article 15(3) read with Article 39(f) of Constitution of India to make laws to protect women and children – Right to get proper, fair and speedy investigation which forms part of fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been denied to petitioner – Only another agency which is most sought for is Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) – Only hope of father of victim girl child is Central Agency – Thinking from victim's point of view, in order to keep ray of hope alive, CBI directed to take over charge of investigation of this case forthwith. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader No. 5 for the State and learned Senior Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Brief Facts of the case.

2. This criminal writ application has been filed by the father of a victim minor girl for a direction to the investigating agency to locate his daughter aged about 6 years who has gone missing since 16.02.2021 from Saraswati Puja Pandal built up in front of the house of the petitioner. It is stated that the victim girl was playing there when all of a sudden she went missing. In this connection, the petitioner has lodged a first information report giving rise to Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 58 of 2021 dated 17.02.2021 registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. He provided a photograph of the victim girl to the investigating agency.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the local police has not taken appropriate action towards recovery of the victim girl. He has expressed his agony saying that he has been running from pillar to post for recovery of his minor daughter but nobody is taking care of his request. In this connection, he has submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur vide Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application and further to the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Region, Muzaffarpur and then to the Director General of Police, Bihar through Annexures ‘3’ and ‘4’ to the writ application.

4. The petitioner had disclosed that when the petitioner was trying to find out his minor daughter, in that course one lady appeared before the petitioner on 22.03.2021 and disclosed that his daughter was at Bairiya after her abduction. Another person namely Rahul Sah a fruit dealer at Bairiya Golambar told the petitioner that his daughter was at Danapur but this must not be disclosed to the administration and for release of his daughter the petitioner will have to spend a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The petitioner made a representation before the Sr. S.P., Muzaffarpur in this regard (Annexure ‘2’). It is further submitted that during the investigation, police arrested one person namely Aman Kumar who was sent to judicial custody on 08.03.2021. Subsequently, on 07.06.2021, four persons namely Pankaj Sah, Rita Devi, Munni Devi and mother of Rita Devi started abusing and assaulting the family members of the petitioner. It is stated that one Rita Devi wife of Baiju Mahto was threatening the petitioner and his family members for dire consequences. The matter was reported to the I.O. of Brahmpura Police Station P.S. case No. 58 of 2021 and in this connection, an application was also submitted with the Inspector General, Tirhut Range, Muzaffapur (Annexure ‘3’).

5. This writ application came to be filed in this Court on 26.08.2021. It was taken up for consideration for the first time on 05.05.2022. A learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of the fact that it was a case of kidnapping of 6 years old daughter of the petitioner directed the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to file their counter affidavits and also called for the case diary.

6. The matter was taken up on 21.06.2022. Considering the gravity of the matter, this Court directed that the Dy.S.P. Town Muzaffarpur shall be personally present in Court for interaction in course of hearing of the case. Till that time, no counter had been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5. After the order dated 21.06.2022 calling upon the Dy.S.P., (HQ) Muzaffarpur to appear, a counter affidavit came to be filed. This Court was informed that during the investigation name of one non-F.I.R. person (a juvenile) came in light, he was apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur on 08.03.2021. A chargesheet has been filed against him. It is stated that the petitioner had taken name of one person namely Rahul Kumar who was arrested and after necessary enquiry, he had been released on Personal Bond on 04.04.2022. It is further di