Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.A. Ansari

1. An apparent lapse of the State police machinery, in respect of investigation of offences, and their failure to protect the Constitutional, legal and human rights of those, against whom allegations of commission of offences are made, have led to this Criminal Petition, which has been registered under Section 482 CrPC.I have heard Mr. JM Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel, Mr. B. Purakayastha, learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Advocate General, and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved, and the directions to be passed in this Criminal Petition, it is necessary to look into the chain of events in their chronological order, which have led to this Criminal Petition. The background facts, being of utmost necessity, are, therefore, set out, in brief, as under:

Background facts:

A. EVENTS OF 09.02.2007

On 09-02-2007, interim direction for pre-arrest bail, in favour of the petitioner, namely, Shri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, in connection with Paltanbazar Police Station Case No. 68 of 2007, under Section 353 IPC, was granted by the High Court, in Bail Application No. 422 of 2007, fixing the bail application, for hearing, on 14-02-2007, and, in the meanwhile, the relevant case diary was called for. This interim direction for pre-arrest bail was subject to the condition that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by police at all reasonable time. The FIR, lodged by an Executive Magistrate, which had given rise to the case aforementioned, alleged, inter alia, that on 13.02.2007, on being detailed by the District Magistrate, while she was discharging her duties, as regards cleanliness drive of the city of Guwahati, the said Umesh Chandra Tiwari had obstructed them in discharging their duties and misbehaved with the informant and her group.

B. EVENTS OF 13.02.2007

(i) By making this miscellaneous application on 13-02-2007, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the bail applicant had gone, on 12-02-2007, at about 6:30 pm, to Paltanbazar Police Station, in order to make himself available for recording his statement by the police and, since then, he had been kept detained. On the basis of the instructions received, learned Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court that the petitioner had, indeed, been kept detained, at the said police station, on the instructions of the police authorities, superior in the rank of the Officer-in-Charge (in short, 'O/C'), Paltanbazar Police Station (in short, 'PBPS').

(ii) Considering the fact that the matter, in question, concerned the liberty of a citizen, and the conduct of the police machinery, if true, was a serious impediment in the administration of justice, the Court directed that the O/C, PBPS, shall appear, in person, within half-an-hour, along with the bail applicant and offer explanation as to why action shall not be taken against him, in accordance with law, for not carrying out the directions of the Court. The Registry was directed to communicate the said order, telephonically, to the O/C, PBPS, and also send a copy of the order by special messenger. This apart, even the Director General of Police, Assam, was directed to ensure appearance of the O/C, PBPS, within the time as mentioned hereinbefore.

(iii) The order, passed by the Court, on 13-02-2007, read as under:

By making this application, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, who was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 09.02.07, in Bail application No. 422/2007, in connection with Paltan Bazar Police Station Case No. 68/2007, under Section 353 IPC, went, on 12.02.07, at about 6-30 p.m., to the Paltan Bazar Police Station, in order to make himself available for recording of his statement by the police and since then, he has been kept detained.

When this application was moved by Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel f