Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84301 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-435 Year-2018 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar, aged about 40 years, male, Son of Shri Bachchu Prasad Singh, Resident of Akhatwara, Bahadurpur, P.O.- Ballipur, DistrictSamastipur, Bihar. Presently residing at Shashtrinagar, CID Colony, Quarter No.19/48, P.O. and P.S.- Shashtrinagar, District- Patna, Bihar - 800023. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 73599 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-436 Year-2018 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar, aged about 40 years, male, Son of Shri Bachchu Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Akhatwara, Bahadurpur, P.O. - Ballipur, Distt. - Samastipur, Bihar. Presently residing at Shashrinagar, CID Colony, Quarter No. 19/48, P.O. and P.S.- Shashtrinagar, Distt. - Patna, Bihar - 800023. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In both the cases) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Adv.
2/4 Mr. Manu Tripurari, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. S.D. Yadav, A.A.G.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-11-2021 In Cr. Misc. Nos. 84301 of 2019 and 73599 of 2019 :
Heard Mr. Kumar Shashank, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Yadav, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State.
Both the applications have been filed for quashing of the First Information Reports of Buddha Colony P.S. Case Nos. 435 of 2018 and 436 of 2018 respectively, dated 02.11.2018, instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307, 326, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 449, 450, 451, 452, 461 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Damage to Public Property Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the cases, has strenuously argued that none of the offences charged against him can at all be said to have been made
3/4 out. He further submits that during the course of investigation, his presence at the place of occurrence also has been doubted. Nonetheless, he has again reiterated that the investigation still has been kept pending like a Damocle's sword hanging over his head.
During the pendency of these cases, the petitioner was dismissed from service but with the intervention of the Court, he was reinstated. Again, he has been suspended, perhaps in contemplation of any departmental proceeding. All that this Court can direct is that the investigating agency ought to complete the investigation. The investigation began in the year 2018. Had the investigating agency been careful, the investigation would have been concluded by now.
However, in view of the statement made by Mr. Yadav, learned A.A.G. that the investigation shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and shall positively be concluded within a period of three months from today, this Court only directs that the commitment made by the learned A.A.G. be fulfilled and the investigation be concluded
4/4 preferably within a period of three months. This time frame would also entail the co-operation of the accused persons in the investigation.
It will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court, in case the time frame is flouted. The petitioner shall also be entitled to raise all the grounds which have been raised in the present applications at an appropriate stage. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the applications stand disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/- U T