Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands)
13.07.2021 1 (S/L) SKB/Debajyoti CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AT PORT BLAIR CRM No. 8 of 2021 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Central Crime Station Police Station Case No. 023 of 2021 dated 01.07.2021 under Sections 204/218/464/465/466/468/471/477A/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re:- Mahesh Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Mr. Ajith Prasad, Mr. M. H. Chowdhury ... for the petitioner Mr. Krishna Rao ...for the State The advocate-on-record of the petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within four weeks from date. Subject to such undertaking the application is taken up for hearing. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the initiation of a proceeding under the aforesaid charging sections despite having held a high reputed post in the police administration. The petitioner was posted as the Station House Officer (SHO) and was in seisin of the investigation of a case in discharge of his official duties. Admittedly, the said case was lodged at a relevant point of time when the petitioner was not posted in such position, that is, he
was not posted as SHO in the said police station and after completion of the investigation, the matter was placed before the erstwhile SHO for preparation of the chargesheet. After the chargesheet was so prepared, it was sent to the SDPO for his opinion and vetting. It transpires from the record that there was a further investigation in the said case which, according to the petitioner, was in terms of the direction passed by the SDPO and after the completion of the further investigation, the chargesheet was prepared and sent to the SDPO for vetting.
Till this time, there was no problem so far as the discharge of the duty by the petitioner is concerned. The allegation ensued upon a scoring and/or deletion the name of one of the chargesheeted accused in the first chargesheet, which led to the initiation of the instant proceeding.
It is a case of the prosecution that the scoring of the name of the fourth chargesheeted accused was at the behest of the present petitioner with some oblique motive and the document pertaining thereto has been completely destroyed so as to diminish the evidence that may be projected against him.
Our attention is drawn to the various documents annexed to the instant application for anticipatory bail wherefrom it transpires that the first chargesheet, which was prepared and sent for vetting, had been retrieved so
also the other documents and the Investigating Officer is in custody thereof.
Mr. Rao, learned advocate, appearing for the State is very much vocal in his submission that though the first chargesheet was retrieved and was resurrected, yet the Case Diary, which played a pivotal role in preparation of the chargesheet, is still missing and probably destroyed by the petitioner.
The petitioner has already been put under suspension and a direction in this regard has been made to appear before superior authority where his posting is shown in the suspension order.
Apart from the same, notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been issued against the petitioner, though there is a dissent on the conduct of the petitioner that he does not comply with the requisitions made therein. On the other hand, the petitioner says that being a law abiding citizen and a responsible police officer, he had never violated the provision of the law nor had any intention to do so. The entire case hinges on the documentary evidence and the intention in commission of an offence, which is a matter of trial.
According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer had not allowed him to comply the requisitions made in the notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been denied by Mr. Rao.
We do not venture to enter into such disputed arena. What we perceive is that it is a case which requires the scrutiny of the various documents and the intention to fabricate and/or forge the documents maintained by the department and the entire document has now been seized and in custody of the Investigating Officer. There cannot be any doubt that such documents cannot be tampered with by the petitioner and, therefore, we do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is inevitable. Accordingly, in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.
10,000/, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer of the concerned police station and on conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders and cooperate with the Investigating Officer without taking any lame excuse and the petitioner shall make himself available with the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without obtaining prior leave from the concerned Court. The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 8 of 2021 is thus allowed.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)