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) 1062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Usha Sharma W/o Late Dr. Kumar Sharad Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.130 of 2017
Decided on : 19-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Md. Nadeem Seraj, Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Mr. Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate

The duty of the police to conduct fair investigations and the court's obligation to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law.

Headnote:

Investigation - Criminal Procedure - IPC 302/34/120B, Arms Act 27 - The court considered the conduct of the Investigating Agency in the investigation of the case and the release of the accused on personal bond. The court found that the investigation had been pending for eight years without progress and the petitioner had lost confidence in the investigating agency. The court directed a court-monitored investigation and considered the need for a CBI transfer. The court cited legal principles emphasizing the duty of the police to conduct fair investigations and the court's obligation to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's husband was shot dead, and the petitioner alleged a conspiracy involving the accused persons. The investigation was pending for eight years without progress, and the petitioner had lost confidence in the investigating agency.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conduct of the Investigating Agency and the release of the accused on personal bond required consideration. The court formed a prima facie opinion that a court-monitored investigation was required in the interest of justice.

Issues: The conduct of the Investigating Agency, release of accused on personal bond, and the pending investigation were the key issues before the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the police to conduct fair investigations and the court's obligation to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law. The court found that the case required a court-monitored investigation and considered the need for a CBI transfer.

Final Decision: The court directed the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D. and the Investigating Officer to be present in person with all materials collected so far to show the progress in the investigation and to explain why the case should not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court added the CBI as a party respondent and directed a court-monitored investigation.

ORDER :

Pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by this Court, the ADG, CID and the I.O. of the case being Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 302/34/120B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act are present with the records including the case diary.

2. Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned GP-5 represents the State and on instruction from ADG, CID he has assisted this Court. Mr. Amit Narayan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 6 and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 and 8 have been heard.

3. On 18.10.2022, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and the State, this Court formed a prima facie opinion that: (1) the matter relating to release of private respondent nos. 6 to 8 on personal bond in the facts of the present case and the materials in which the I.O. himself had been seeking their custodial interrogation at one stage coupled with the fact that their privilege for anticipatory bail was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires consideration in accordance with law and (2) the fact that the CID has kept the investigation of the case pending with it for eight years and there is no whisper in the counter affidavit explaining the reasons for the huge and inordinate delay in conduct of investigation in a murder case, the grievance of the petitioner that the case is not being properly investigated and she has lost confidence in the investigating agency requires consideration.

4. For a ready reference, the order dated 18.10.2022 is being reproduced hereunder:-

    “This Court in the present writ application has been considering the conduct of the Investigating Agency so far in the matter of investigation of the case being Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 registered for offences alleged under Sections 302/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand the I.O. of the case released the named accused persons on personal bond despite the fact that their privilege of anticipatory bail granted by this Court had been cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they were directed to surrender in police station, at the same time the investigation of the case has been kept pending by the State C.I.D. for over eight years without there being any progress in the case.

The facts of the case as revealed in the First Information Report are that when the husband of the petitioner was sitting at the varandah of his house, he was shot dead by a person who was holding pistol in his hand. This petitioner is an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. In her written complaint to police, she has specifically alleged that in the year 2009 August, one Anil Sharma, M.D., Amrapagali Group with the help of the other named accused persons including private respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the present writ application had taken control of the trust and had forcibly removed her father who was Secretary of the trust, whereafter disputes were going on and in relation to those disputes records were available in the police station. It is alleged that the entire income of Balika Vidyapith were unlawfully taken into control of two persons namely, Dr. Praveen Sinha and Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh. A specific allegation is that at their instance on previous occasions in the campus of the school firings were done and her husband and other officers were being threatened regularly. Her husband was being asked to leave Lakhisarai failing which he would have to face dire consequences. It is stated that to weaken the case lodged by her husband against unauthorized opening of account of the Trust and on finding that during his lifetime it would not be possible for the accused persons to take complete control of the Trust, the husband of the petitioner was threatened on 31.07.2014 and it was told by one employee Shri Radhe Shyam Singh that her husban

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