Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Sharma @ Satyendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1468 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-865 Year-2022 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Sharma @ Satyendra Singh Son of Late Lalan Singh R/o- Bira, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya 4.

The Superintendent of of Police, Jehanabad 5.

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Jehanabad 6.

The Officer-in-charge of Jehanabad Town Police Station, Jehanabad ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-12-2022 Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shivam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State. Petitioner in the present case is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to properly and fairly investigate Jehanabad Town P.S. Case No. 865 of 2022.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Pramukh of Hulasganj Prakhand in the District of Jehanabad and for that reason, he is facing certain political rivalries. He had also contested election for Member of the Legislative Council from Local Bodies seat about six months

2/6 back. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has one property consisting of six rooms and a hall situated on the first floor of Alok Apartment which he had leased out for running Shiv Satya Rest House and Marriage Hall to one Sri Nagendra Sharma, son of Krishna Sharma, resident of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Pauthu, District- Aurangabad. A copy of the said agreement has been brought on the record as Annexure '1'.

It is submitted that on a raid conducted by local police on secret information, three different couples were recovered, all of whom including the three females were found major. The case being Jehanabad Town P.S. Case No. 865 of 2022 has been registered under Sections 370(a) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against 15 persons including the owner/manager of the Rest House.

Learned Senior counsel submits that the wife of the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent no. 2, the Director General of Police, Bihar as also to the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad requesting therein to conduct proper and fair investigation of the case. The son of the petitioner has also submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. The copies of the representations have been

3/6 brought on record as Annexures '3', '3/A' and '4' respectively. Learned Senior Counsel submits at this stage that recently in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being Cr.W.J.C. No. 153 of 2017, Surendra Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Others reported in 2022 (6) BLJ 95, this Court has vide its order dated 09.09.2022 issued some directions to the supervising authorities as also the competent court within whose jurisdiction the case is pending to ensure proper investigation of the case and monitoring thereof. It is submitted that a similar direction may be issued in respect of the present case as well. Learned counsel for the State is present. He has no objection in issuing of similar directions in respect of the present case also.

In Cr.W.J.C. No. 153 of 2017 and other analogous cases, this Court has issued the following directions:- "(I) In the cases where the investigation of the case is still pending, the concerned writ petitioner/an aggrieved person (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner' or 'an aggrieved person') may file an appropriate application before the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district drawing his attention towards the pending investigation. The aggrieved person shall submit his stand by way of an application with all supporting materials in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police or send the same through registered post/speed post/email, as the case may be. A copy of the same shall also be sent to the investigating officer of the case.

(II) On receipt of such application from the aggrieved person, the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police shall himself supervise the

4/6 said case within a period of two weeks, wherever necessary he shall give a chance of hearing to the aggrieved person and all endeavours be made to consider the submissions as well as the materials produced before him.

(III) The Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police shall issue necessary instructions to any other supervising authority such as Dy.S.P. and also to the I.Os. of the case to complete the investigation from all angles within a reasonable period. What will be the reasonable period will depend upon the nature of the case and the kind of materials which are required to be dealt with. It is to be kept in mind that only because the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for maximum limit within which an investigation is to be completed, it does not mean that the investigation is to be kept pending for decades. There are many judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the prosecution has been quashed because the investigating agency failed to complete the investigation of the case despite lapse of several years. Undue delay in completion of investigation erodes public faith and confidence in the investigating agency.

(IV) Upon receipt of a request/application /representation from a person connected with the case and aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the investigation alleging improper investigation, complaints of threat to him or his family or the witnesses by his opponents, accused or his associates, it is the Sr. Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Station House Officer of the concerned police station as well as the I.O. of the case who would be duty bound to enter or caused to be entered the information in the station diary of the police station and examine or caused to be examined the threat perception of the informant and/or his family members/witnesses and take appropriate steps at the earliest, in the cases where threat perceptions are found to be genuine, they would take immediate measures to protect the life of the person(s) under threat. Delay in examining the request/representation leading to any serious consequences shall in itself be a matter of enquiry and action against the erring police officials.

(V) As regards the grievance that accused persons are not being arrested in cases involving serious and heinous offences the Senior Superintendent of

5/6 Police/Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer shall take appropriate steps keeping in view the law and judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. In the matter of absconding accused the I.O. must take immediate steps to arrest him and exhaust all other procedures in accordance with law with utmost expedition.

(VI) This Court has already reproduced the extracts from judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra). In the light of the said judgment, this Court directs that in all these cases the learned Magistrate(s) in whose court the case is pending, shall, without seeking any application from the informant monitor the investigation. They are fully competent to take a view as to whether a proper investigation is taking place or not. Learned Magistrates are expected to exercise their powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure that investigation of the case pending before the learned Magistrate is duly investigated.

If it is found that the Investigating Officer is not proceeding with the investigation expeditiously and is keeping the same pending without rhyme or reason and in the opinion of the learned Magistrate it is found to be a case of inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate would be well within his powers to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police to change the Investigating Officer, to supervise the case himself by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police and to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. While exercising his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

, the learned Magistrate shall definitely monitor the investigation, though he cannot investigate the case himself and will not act as supervisory authority but it is certainly within his domain to ensure that the investigation is done properly and for this purpose without interfering with the power of the Investigating Officer or the Supervising Authority to conduct an investigation, the learned Magistrate may issue appropriate directions which in his opinion is required for conduct of proper investigation. What would be the nature of such direction(s) in a given case cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and it is for the learned Magistrate to look into this aspect of the matter on case to case basis.

6/6 Prosecutor/A.P.P. seeking directions for proper investigation must be heard expeditiously and the same be disposed of within a period of 30 days from the date on which such application is moved before the learned Magistrate on the first date. If the learned Magistrate fails to exercise his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. either on his own or on filing of the application by the aggrieved person, an appropriate application may be brought before this Court for an order/direction and monitoring as the case may be.

(VII) If any of the directions issued by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the order of this Court as stated above to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police/investigating officer, unless otherwise interfered with by a competent court of law, is not given effect to by the concerned authorities, it will be taken to be a case of contempt of this Court and the learned Magistrate may inform this Court as regards the willful disobedience or disregard shown to the order/orders, direction/directions issued by him in terms of this judgment. In such circumstance an aggrieved person may also file an application seeking initiation of contempt.

(VIII) All the stake-holders in the present writ applications shall act accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar to enable him to issue necessary instructions at the earliest."

The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad (Respondent No. 4), the Officer In-charge of Jehanabad Town police station, Jehanabad (Respondent No. 6) and the competent court within whose jurisdiction the case is pending are directed to act accordingly in respect of the present case as well. This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) lekhi/- U T