Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 473 (PAT)

Sushil Kumar Modi v. State of Bihar

1997-07-07

S.N.JHA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1997
Order Pursuant to order dated 30.6.97 Dr. U.N. Biswas, Joint Director, CBI (East) has filed affidavit. The State Government as well as the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, have also filed separate affidavits. We postpone passing orders on these affidavits for the present. 2. In course of hearing of the case, a questionnaire was submitted on behalf of the CBI and request was made to issue suitable directions to the Chief Secretary and D.G.P. Government of Bihar. Mr. G.P. Roy, Additional Advocate General No.3. states that he will take specific instructions and file further affidavit. He may do so by 11.7.97. 3. CBI, in the meantime, is directed to inform the appropriate authority of the Central Government about its threat perceptions. 4. We would like to remind the new Director, CBI, that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, as well as the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Director, CBI, is answerable and accountable to the Court "for fair, honest and complete investigation", and to ensure the compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 5.11.96 that "the exercise has to be preformed objectively and fairly, mindful of the fact that the majesty of law has to be upheld and the 'rule of law' preserved, which does not discriminate between individuals on the basis of their status, position or power. The law treats everyone as equal before it and this has to be kept in view constantly in every State action to avoid violation of the 'right to equality' guaranteed in Article 14 of the Constitution". 5. May be listed on 11th July, 1997 for further directions. 6. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the CBI, Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, Additional Advocate General No.3, for the State, Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Additional Standing Counsel, Central Government and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, counsel for one of the writ petitioners.