Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 701 (HP)

Lakhveer Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Inspector Prem Singh, Police Station, Talai, Inspector Sita Ram, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Inspector Bhupinder, SHO, Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and ASI Ramesh Chand, Police Station, Kangra are present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 2. On 5.4.2016, F.I.R. No.38/2016 under Sections 307, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. against the accused (petitioner). Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 6.4.2016, this Court passed an interim order directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. 3. In relation thereto (FIR No.38/2016), it is so stated by Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions received from Inspector Prem Singh, SHO, Police Station, Talai that custodial interrogation of the accused is not required. Investigation is complete and in near future, Challan is likely to be presented in the Court. 4. Hence petition can be disposed of by passing a simple order. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 6.4.2016 is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down therein. Needless to add, petitioner is permanent resident of State of H.P. and is not likely to flee from the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, petitioner is permanent resident of State of H.P. and is not likely to flee from the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. 7. But the matter cannot be put to rest here, for in the instant case, issue of vital importance concerning personal liberty of an individual, has arisen for consideration. 8. On 6.4.2016, this Court had granted pre-arrest bail. But when the matter came up for hearing on 28.4.2016, the bail application was opposed on the ground that three other FIRs are pending investigation/trial against the accused in different Police Stations within the State of Himachal Pradesh, which fact came to be vehemently refuted by the learned counsel, under instructions from the petitioner, who was present in the Court. On the basis of information furnished by Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, where the petitioner ordinarily resides and record pertaining to him is ordinarily maintained, the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Talai had instructed that proceedings in relation to at least two FIRs dated 22.2.2001 and 25.10.2010 (FIR No.30/2001 and FIR No.201/2010), so registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, were pending. 9. As such, on 28.4.2016, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit disclosing the mechanism adopted by the police in maintaining the record in different Police Stations pertaining to the outcome of the proceedings of the FIRs registered at different Police Stations. The order reads as under:- “Inspector Prem Singh, Police Station, Talai, Bilaspur, H.P., present in Court. Mr. The order reads as under:- “Inspector Prem Singh, Police Station, Talai, Bilaspur, H.P., present in Court. Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions, states that proceedings arising out of FIR Nos.30/2001, dated 22.02.2001, 201/2010, dated 25.10.2010, both registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin and FIR No.58/2014, dated 03.04.2014, registered at Police Station, Kangra, are pending against the accused. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel, under instructions, points that in relation to first two FIRs, petitioner already stands acquitted. Insofar as third FIR is concerned, it is a cross case pertaining to monetary dispute. Let factual position be ascertained and Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, file his personal affidavit disclosing as to whether there is any mechanism, in law, which is in any event has not been at least brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the parties, whereby information pertaining to the outcome of the case arising out of the FIR is furnished to the concerned Police Station or not and as to whether the concerned Police Station maintains any record of any further proceedings which may have been initiated in relation to the same FIR. Interim order to continue. List on 04.05.2016. Copy dasti.” 10. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has filed his personal affidavit stating that in the respective police stations records, so prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Voll-III (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh), are maintained. Noticeably, both Police Stations, Ghumarwin and Talai fall within the jurisdiction of same district i.e. Bilaspur. 11. In terms of order dated 4.5.2016, SHOs of Police Stations, Ghumarwin, Sadar, Bilaspur and Kangra have produced the record maintained therein. 12. Evidently, out of four FIRs, proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the FIR at Police Station, Ghumarwin stand culminated. The matter in relation to FIR No.30/2001 and FIR No.201/2010 stood compromised on 24.4.2008 and 26.5.2015 respectively. The accused stands acquitted/discharged. Evidently, despite the same, though entries thereof were recorded at Police Station, Ghumarwin, but such information was not furnished to Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, the place where the petitioner ordinarily resides, being his native place. Record does not reveal why it was not so done. But then was it necessary to do so? In law, yes. 13. Evidently, despite the same, though entries thereof were recorded at Police Station, Ghumarwin, but such information was not furnished to Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, the place where the petitioner ordinarily resides, being his native place. Record does not reveal why it was not so done. But then was it necessary to do so? In law, yes. 13. As per Rule 22.59, Police Station having jurisdiction of the native place of a person is required to maintain a register [in Form 22.59 (1) C] and maintain record of cognizable offences (under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code) of cases where strong suspicion is rested on the resident of the village, regardless of the cases having occurred within the village or outside. It is in this context that entries pertaining to two FIRs registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin came to be recorded at Police Station, Sadar, where record pertaining to the petitioner was ordinarily maintained. 14. The question which arises for consideration is what happens when proceedings arising out of FIR, so recorded in another police station, entry whereof is also recorded in the native Police Station of the accused culminates either in acquittal or conviction of the accused. Is such entry required to be reflected in the record of the native Police Station or not? Answer to the same lies in the Rules itself. Rule 23.17 prescribes that the Officer Incharge of the concerned Police Station “shall send” information sheet in Form 23.17 (1) as soon as possible, to the Officer Incharge of the Police Station of which such person claims to be a resident (native place). As per Sub Rule (4) of Rule 23.17, the Officer Incharge of the Police Station is obliged to send final information sheets “as soon as possible”, after the conclusion of either the police investigation or judicial trial. Information thereof, is also required to be sent to the Superintendent of Police and as per Sub Rule (6) of Rule 23.17, the Officer Incharge of the Police Station receiving such information, is required to make entry in Register XII-A [Form 23.17 (6)]. Thus, all entries with regard to the outcome of the trial are necessarily required to be made not only in the Police Station where the FIR stands registered but also in the native Police Station i.e. the Police Station where the person ordinarily resides. 15. Thus, all entries with regard to the outcome of the trial are necessarily required to be made not only in the Police Station where the FIR stands registered but also in the native Police Station i.e. the Police Station where the person ordinarily resides. 15. Now in the instant case, why no information of the outcome of the proceedings was sent by Police Station, Ghumarwin to Police Station, Sadar is not evident from the record. But the fact is that it was not so done. This Court, by no means, wants proceedings to be initiated against the erring officials but the whole purpose is to highlight the lapses in complying with the Rules, for had such entries been made, the bail application would not have been opposed by the State on 28.4.2016, only on the ground of pendency of other FIRs. It is the petitioner’s good luck that he was present in the Court on that day. 16. There is an object and purpose in maintaining the records at Police Stations. It helps the police in fair, free and expeditious investigation and outcome of the trial. It also helps in checking the crime in the area. It also helps the police in maintaining the law and order. The whole object and purpose being to have a civil police force for efficacious and expeditious investigation and trial. 17. Bail and not jail is the rule of law. The apex Court has reiterated this principle time and again. [See: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2016 (1) SCC 152 ]. 18. Due process is a concept enshrined in the Constitution. The freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law and following due process, which is the basic cardinal principle of our Constitutional goal and value system. Part-III of our Constitution protects life and personal liberty of a citizen. No person can ever be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. No doubt, an individual cannot have an absolute right of freedom but then curtailment of such right has to be only by following due process. Now in the instant case, absence of maintenance of proper record could have resulted in depravation of the personal liberty of an individual. No doubt, an individual cannot have an absolute right of freedom but then curtailment of such right has to be only by following due process. Now in the instant case, absence of maintenance of proper record could have resulted in depravation of the personal liberty of an individual. Pendency of multiple cases of criminal nature may have had some bearing on the outcome of the present petition. It isin this backdrop, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to properly maintain the records. 19. The expression used in the Rules is “shall”. It makes compliance thereof to be mandatory and a duty is cast upon the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to properly maintain, complete and proper record. The expression used “as soon as possible” in the Rules only means that the Police Officer has to act with promptitude. Efficiency is the order. None is to endlessly sleep over the matter. 20. The Rules came to be framed in the year 1934 since when things have changed and there has been great advancement in technology. We are living in the 21st century. The modes and means of communication have changed to become simpler and quicker. The Police Stations have been computerized. Information of the nature in question, required to be maintained in the Police Stations, can be done on the computers, and outcome of proceedings informed through electronic means. Now Police Stations are also maintaining some records in electronic forms. However they need to be updated periodically. 21. Noticeably, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused has a right of being supplied with the information as also copies of documents/report under various provisions, more so, under Chapter XVI. Whether such information can be made available and supplied through electronic mode or not has not been considered by the State at all. Use of modern technology would only help things become simpler for the general public, including the accused and help improve efficiency in the Police Force. 22. The petition is disposed of with further following directions:- (i) The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that records in all the Police Stations are updated at the earliest and certainly within the next six months. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court. (ii) The State shall consider providing funds for digitalizing the records maintained in the police stations of the State. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court. (ii) The State shall consider providing funds for digitalizing the records maintained in the police stations of the State. (iii) Where ever such information is required to be shared or can be furnished or shared, it be additionally done through electronic mode. (iv) Records maintained at the Police Stations be periodically checked by the superior Officers and report submitted to the Director General of Police. (v) Periodical training be imparted to the police officials maintaining such records. (vi) Records maintained in the Office of the Superintendents of Police be also digitalized and maintained in digital form.