A parallel enquiry without withdrawing the investigation hampers the investigation, and one year of incarceration in a murder case is not sufficient for bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the applicant. Shri Purushottam Rai, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

2. This is third application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail. First application and second application were dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated 21-12-2018 and 4-9-2019 passed in MCRC 52495 of 2018 and MCRC 35978 of 2019 respectively.

3. The applicant has been arrested on 21-7-2018 in connection with Crime No.88 of 2015 registered at Police Station Noorabad, Morena for offence under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of Indian Penal Code.

4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that a parallel enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Morena, who, in his report dated 8-3-2016, came to the conclusion that the applicant was not present on the date of incident, however, it was observed that he might be a party to the conspiracy. It is further submitted that the witnesses are not appearing before the Trial Court and the applicant is in jail from 21-7-2018.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the applicant was arrested at a later stage and supplementary charge-sheet was filed and the applicant had absconded after the incident. According to the prosecution case, the incident had taken place on 24-7-2015 whereas the applicant could be arrested only on 21-7-2018. It is further submitted that there are direct allegations against the applicant.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. So far as the question of enquiry report given by Additional Superintendent of Police is concerned, the counsel for the applicant submitted that the said report was prepared in the light of powers under section 36 of Criminal Procedure Code.

8. It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that a circular dated 25-6-2010 has been issued by the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and that circular still holds the field. The said circular has been issued by the State Government to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and ors. vs. State of M.P. and ors. reported in 2006(2) M.P.L.J. 324. In the case of Sanjay Singh (Supra), on the recommendation of a Member of Parliament, the S.P. Morena directed the S.D.O.(P) to conduct an enquiry. S.D.O.(P) conducted the inquiry and found that some of the accused persons were not involved in the crime. Thus, it was argued that on account of directions of parallel enquiry or inquiry by some superior officer, wrong message is going to the public that if somebody is in a position to wield influence, he can shun the investigation against him by adopting influential method. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering various aspects of the matter, held that Criminal Investigation Department is defined in Regulation 7. Normally, investigation should not be interfered with at the instance of accused. However, if some irregularity is found or it is found that an innocent citizen is falsely implicated, the case should be examined by Superintendent of Police and he may either depute Senior Officer to investigate the matter or may investigate the case personally. But once investigation commenced, it should be completed without interference. Regulation 879 relates to supervision by Superintendent of Police in cases where investigation has been refused. However, where the Superintendent of Police is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that proper investigation is not carried out, then investigation officer may be changed, but practice of handing over case to CID is deprecated. Accordingly, the direction to handover the investigation to the CID was quashed.

9. The relevant portion of the circular dated 25-6-2010 reads as under :—

10. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the word “enquiry” mentioned in the circular should not be construed as an enquiry as mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code, but it should be constr