Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 198 (PAT)

Shaheed @ Shahid @ Dablu v. State of Bihar

2005-02-22

body2005
ORDER 1. An F.I.R. bearing Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 344 of 2004 came to be registered on 15.5.2004 against two to three unknown accused persons who were alleged to be aged 22 to 23 years on the allegation that in a deserted lane the said unknown accused stopped a tempo and snatched Rs. 18,000/- from the driver. 2. During investigation the petitioner was taken into custody on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner is stated to be approximately 15 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence as recorded in his Admit Card placed at annexure-3 to the bail application showing his date of birth as 12.2.1989. 3. The bail application of the petitioner having been rejected by the courts below was then preferred before this Court. On 11.8.2004 this Court called for the case diary. On 6.9.2004 the antecedent report of the petitioner was also called for. The antecedent report received from the police disclosed that there were six previous cases registered against the petitioner, excluding the present prosecution. This was so stated to be on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner as recorded in paragraph 48 of the case diary. The order dated 27.7.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna would reveal that the antecedents of the petitioner weighed heavily with the court in rejecting his prayer for bail. 4. A petition was then filed on behalf of the petitioner disputing the fact that the petitioner was an accused in any of the six cases. This court then directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to file affidavit in opposition to this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. On 8.12.2004 this Court passed a reasoned order expressing dissatisfaction with the casual nature of the affidavit submitted on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The Court, therefore and granted further opportunity to the Senior Superintendent of Police to file further affidavit in terms of the direction contained therein. Subsequently on 10.12.12004 when, a fresh affidavit was submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, it surfaced that the petitioner was perhaps not the subject matter of investigation in the aforesaid six cases. This Court then required from the investigating agency to submit the case diaries of all the six cases to this Court. Subsequently on 10.12.12004 when, a fresh affidavit was submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, it surfaced that the petitioner was perhaps not the subject matter of investigation in the aforesaid six cases. This Court then required from the investigating agency to submit the case diaries of all the six cases to this Court. The absence of certain informations with regard to non-submission of the case diary in some of the prosecution, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to file further affidavit with regard to the reason why case diary had not been submitted after an F.I.R. had been registered of non-cognizable offences. 5. This Court then directed that the case diaries of all the six cases be sent to the District & Sessions Judge, Patna for a report with regard to the status of the, petitioner in these cases. The report of the District & Sessions Judge, Patna was then received which confirmed the assertion of the petitioner with regard to his not being an accused or the subject matter of investigation and that no requisition for his arrest had been made in any of the six cases. 6. The subsequent and third affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police is still silent as to the reason why the case diary has not been submitted in three of the six F.I.Rs. registered for non-cognizable offences. The Court would have expected better authority of the Senior Superintendent of Police over his subordinates. The Court would not like to comment on this matter further. 7. Separate affidavits have now been tiled on behalf of the officers associated with the circumstances in which the antecedent report of the petitioner came to be recorded and placed before this Court. They would be the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna, the present officer Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna, and the present Sub-Inspector of Police, Gardanibagh Police Station. This Court finds the affidavits to be thoroughly unsatisfactory in their nature. The affidavits seem to be more in the nature of a blame game. Though apology has been tendered, this Court would not like to deal with the same in the present proceeding. The fact that the petitioner was not an accused subject matter of investigation, chargesheeted or requisitioned for arrest in any of the six cases now stands admitted. The petitioner was a minor boy aged approximately 15 years old. Though apology has been tendered, this Court would not like to deal with the same in the present proceeding. The fact that the petitioner was not an accused subject matter of investigation, chargesheeted or requisitioned for arrest in any of the six cases now stands admitted. The petitioner was a minor boy aged approximately 15 years old. If the antecedent report has not been controverted on his behalf, the conclusions were obvious. 8. The consideration of an accused for grant or refusal of bail is a serious matter. Refusal of bail affects the personal liberty of the individual. The question of grant of bail would have to be balanced with the interest of the society at large vis-a-vis the accused. In consideration for a prayer of bail, the antecedent of the person seeking bail is one of the prime considerations which could either obstruct to grant or aid the same, as the case may be. The materials with regard to the alleged antecedents of the petitioner placed on behalf of the police authority in the present case made available in a judicial proceeding were a serious matter affecting the liberty of the individual. 9. In the circumstances this Court considers that the only appropriate order that can be passed in the present proceeding is to direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Director General of Police, Bihar for taking such appropriate action against the officers concerned as he may deem fit and proper in his wisdom. 10. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand State insofar as Sri Subodh Kumar Singh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna, Bihar be concerned as he stated to be presently posted at Golikera Police Station District-Chaibasa, Jharkhand. 11. This Court would thus close the chapter of this proceeding with the pious hope that the concerned Director Generals of Police shall act in accordance with the tradition of the high office that they hold. 12. Let the case diaries be returned forthwith. A communication to that effect be also sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in pursuance of the Court's order dated 10.12.2004. 13. The proceedings stand disposed off.