Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 90 (MAN)

Md. Abdul Rauf v. State of Manipur

2014-07-30

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. PP for the State. 2. The present revision petition has been filed being frustrated with the perceived failure on the part of the Investigating Authority in carrying out a proper investigation into the allegations of assault, intimidation, etc. suffered by the petitioner, his family members at the instance of the respondent No. 6 and his gang. 3. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of an incident which occurred on 2.12.2013 at about 6.00 pm at his residence. According to the petitioner, while he was at his residence with the family members, the respondent No. 6 and about 10 persons led by him entered the house of the petitioner by using force and not only threatened the petitioner and family members but also assaulted them. In doing so, they broke the lock of the main gate, door of the house by using deadly weapons like sticks, dao, stones, iron sticks, etc. The respondent No. 6 along with other persons assaulted him and his wife who suffered injuries on their bodies and the intruders also threatened to kill their two minor children, who somehow managed to escape them by hiding in the staircase of the house. They also assaulted a nephew of the petitioner, who was physically challenged. Upon commotion and alarm being raised for help, the neighbours and other relatives came to the rescue of the petitioner and his family members. Thereafter the respondent No. 6 and his gang left the place on their arrival some of whom were also assaulted by them in the process. According to the petitioner, the petitioner lodged an FIR with the Porompat P.S. which was registered as FIR Case No. 349(12) 2013 Porompat P.S. u/s. 325/354/457/34 IPC inspite of insistence of the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Sections 307, 427, 440 and 449 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the petitioner lodged an FIR with the Porompat P.S. which was registered as FIR Case No. 349(12) 2013 Porompat P.S. u/s. 325/354/457/34 IPC inspite of insistence of the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Sections 307, 427, 440 and 449 of IPC. According to the petitioner, after two days on 4.12.2013, the police personnel of the Porompat P.S. informed the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 had been arrested and directed the petitioner to come to the Porompat P.S. When he reached the police station, he found the respondent No. 6 in the custody of the Porompat P.S. The personnel of the police station asked the petitioner to settle the matter with the respondent No. 6 at the police station but the matter was not settled and accordingly, the petitioner requested the police to proceed with the investigation of the case. However, on finding that there was no progress in the case and on the contrary, the respondent No. 6 was found moving freely, the petitioner submitted an application to the Director General of Police on 03.02.2014 with a copy endorsed to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal East District for causing arrest of the accused persons and to proceed against them in accordance with law. However, later on 06.02.2014, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 6 had already obtained anticipatory bail even though the I.O. of the case had not yet visited the place of occurrence nor recorded the statements of the family members and other witnesses. According to the petitioner, on verification from records, it was seen that the respondent No. 6 was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 9.12.2013, by the Sessions Judge, Manipur Eas, which was confirmed on 22.01.2014 on the ground that the respondent No. 6 had already appeared before the I.O. of the case on 07.01.2014 and he was interrogated and accordingly, released on bail in terms of the earlier interim order dated 9.12.2013. The petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of pre-arrest bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No. 6 and also by the non-progress in the investigation, has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of pre-arrest bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No. 6 and also by the non-progress in the investigation, has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. 4. The main plea raised in the present revision petition is that the Court below ought to not have granted the petitioner relief u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No. 6 merely on the ground of his being interrogated on 01.01.2014, even before other witnesses including the complainant and other victims were examined by the I.O. It has been contended that without examining the complainant, victims and other material witnesses relating to the said incident of assault, by merely interrogating the respondent No. 6, the relief u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. ought not have granted to the respondent No. 6. 5. The petitioner also has submitted that though the petitioner had specifically reported to the police about the physical assault of the petitioner, his wife, his physically challenged nephew and other persons, who came to the place of occurrence to intervene and destruction of property in the house, the I.O. never bothered to visit the place of occurrence to proceed with the investigation. According to the petitioner, the conduct of the Investigating Authority is highly suspect inasmuch as no action has been taken till date to apprehend the other culprits. According to the petitioner, the I.O. had never made any endeavour to examine other local witnesses to ascertain about the occurrence of the aforesaid incident. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner had approached the higher authorities of the police, by submitting representations to the Director General of Police as well as Superintendent of Police on 03.02.2014 and 14.02.2014, there is no visible action on the part of the police authorities to investigate the matter properly and accordingly, having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court for directing the police to undertake proper investigation and also to cancel the order of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent No. 6 u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. 6. This Court issued notice on 25.4.2014 to the respondents. Even though respondent No. 6 was served notice on 08.5.2014, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. This Court issued notice on 25.4.2014 to the respondents. Even though respondent No. 6 was served notice on 08.5.2014, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. When the matter was taken up on 16.7.2014, another opportunity was granted to the respondent No. 6 to appear before this Court as the order passed in his favour on 22.01.2014 by the Sessions Judge is under challenge. However, he has chosen not to appear before this Court on all these days and accordingly, the matter has been taken up and the matter has been heard in his absence. This Court also has called for the records. 7. The learned P.P. has produced the case diary. Even though the case diary shows that the petitioner, his wife, one Md. Amjad Khan were examined, none of the neighbours or other relatives have been examined. The respondent No. 6 was also examined only once, who, of course, has denied the allegations against him. There is no indication in the records of any sustained interrogation or examination of the respondent No. 6 by the Investigating Authority. However, in the report dated 8.7.2014 submitted by the I.O. to the learned counsel for the State before this Court, it has been stated that attempt to examine other co-accused of respondent No. 6 has been in vain as the complainant and other witnesses could not give the particulars of the other co-accused and on examination of the main accused, the respondent No. 6 about the involvement of other co-accused, he declined to disclose the identity of other co-accused persons claiming that the crime was committed by himself only. However, it has been further stated that since the respondent No. 6 has been enlarged on bail, there is no other means to find out the identity of the other co-accused persons and it has been stated that if the bail is cancelled, the police will be able to arrest him and the police may be able to examine other co-accused. Therefore, the report submitted by the I.O. to the counsel of the State would indicate that grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent No. 6 may be a hurdle in delving into the matter to unearth the identity of the other co-accused persons. 8. Therefore, the report submitted by the I.O. to the counsel of the State would indicate that grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent No. 6 may be a hurdle in delving into the matter to unearth the identity of the other co-accused persons. 8. The allegations made by the petitioner are not simple as he has alleged that he, his wife and his physically challenged nephew have been assaulted by the respondent No. 6 and his party and in that connection, he has produced certain medical documents and he has also annexed certain photographs to show damages to his property and his house. Thus, this Court is of the view that the complaint of the petitioner ought to be properly investigated, which from the records of the case as produced before this court, does not seem to have been done so. In this connection, the report submitted by the I.O. to the learned counsel of the State as mentioned above, indicates that if the Investigating Authorities are given a free hand, perhaps, the identities of the other co-accused persons could be established. Therefore, taking a holistic picture of the case, this Court is of the view that there should not be any hindrance or impediment on the part of the Investigating Authorities to investigate the case with a free hand and if the Investigating Authority feels that there has been hindrance for proper investigation of the case because of the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 6 u/s. 438 Cr.P.C., such a hindrance can be removed by revoking the said order passed in favour of the respondent No. 6. This Court with much reluctance has to pass this order to revoke the relief granted to the respondent No. 6 on 22.01.2014 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East, considering the nature of the case and refusal of the respondent No. 6 to appear before this Court inspite of proper service of notice upon him to explain his case before this Court before this adverse order is passed. 9. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Misc. 9. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Misc. (Anticipatory Bail) Case No. 258/2013/361/2013 in making absolute the earlier order dated 9.12.2013 passed in the said case is set aside, to enable the Investigating Authority to undertake the investigation with a free hand so as to ascertain the truth and proceed in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the door of this Court will remain open to the petitioner to approach this Court in accordance with law if aggrieved by any action/non action on the part of the authorities.