Case diary is available.

This eighth application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed

for grant of bail. Seventh application was dismissed by order dated

2

13.05.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21720/2022.

The applicant has been arrested on 22.01.2021 in connection with

Crime No.78/2021 registered at Police Station – Station Road, District

Morena for offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC.

In compliance of order dated 11.11.2022, the S.P., Morena has filed

his report along with the minutes of the meeting of crime control held in

the months of August, September and October, 2022. From the minutes

of the said crime control meeting, it is clear that except by directing the

SDO(P) to forward the report, nothing was done.

When this Court by order dated 07.11.2022 directed the S.P.,

Morena to explain as to why the police witnesses are not appearing

before the Trial Court, thereafter it appears that S.P. issued show cause

notice to SDO(P) also as no report was ever given by him to S.P. Thus, it

is clear that although S.P., Morena had given a direction to SDO(P) to

submit his report in crime control meeting held in the month of

September, 2022 and October, 2022 but did not take any action against

SDO(P), Morena for not submitting any report. Thus, it appears that in

the monthly crime control meeting, S.P., Morena was not actually

monitoring the non-service of summons/bailable warrants/warrants of

arrest issued against the police personnel, but was merely completing

formality by writing letters to SDO(P) to submit the report and SDO(P)

was in its turn was sitting idle and even the S.P., Morena did not take

action against the concerning SDO(P). They woke up only after order

dated 11.11.2022 was passed which reads as under:-

Shri Madhukar Kulshreshtha, Advocate for

applicant.

Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for State.

3

Shri Pawan Devnani, Advocate for complainant.

It is submitted by counsel for State that in

compliance of order dated 07.11.2022, the

Superintendent of Police, Morena has filed the response.

The same is not on record.

Office to verify and place it on record.

For the convenience of this Court, Counsel for

State has provided a copy of the response submitted by

the Superintendent of Police, Morena.

The reply submitted by the Superintendent of

Police, Morena is not satisfactory. The reply is

completely silent with regard to the steps taken by the

Superintendent of Police, Morena to ensure the service

of summons/bailable warrants/warrants as well as the

appearance of police witnesses. The reply is completely

silent about the instruction issued by the Superintendent

of Police, Morena in monthly crime control meeting.

Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Morena

is directed to file the minutes of the crime control

meeting held in the month of August, September and

October, 2022 to show that he had taken note of the

issuance of summons/bailable warrants/warrants issued

in this case or not.

List this case on 14.11.2022.

It is really surprising that first status report was filed on 10.11.2022

and in the said compliance report, there is no mention about the

negligence shown by the SDO(P) or about his conduct of directing the

SDO(P) to scrutinize the cases on individual basis. Only when the S.P.,

Morena was directed to explain about the steps which he had taken in the

crime control meeting, the officers woke up and immediately on

12.11.2022 the SDO(P) submitted his report to the S.P., Morena. This

conduct of S.P., Morena is not appreciable. The police must realize that

filing of the charge-sheet is not an end of their duty. The police must

realize that the charge-sheet is nothing but is a mere opinion formed by

4

the Investigating Officer and unless and until the charges are proved by

the prosecution by examining the witnesses, the duty of the Investigating

Agency would not come to an end. This Court in the case of Shambhu @

Shimbhu Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 28.09.2022

passed in M.C