Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41508 of 2013 ====================================================== Sunil Agrawal, son of late Atma Ram Agrawal, R/O Nathnagar, P.S. Nathnagar, Town and District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s The State Of Bihar & Ors Versus .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 07-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.4.2013 and 27.4.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Bhagalpur in S.T. Case No. 51 of 1994,
Facts
arising out of Nath Nagar P.S. Case No.10 of 1987 by which the prayer of the petitioner for discharge and an application for review of the order rejecting prayer for discharge has both been rejected. In the First Information Report it has been alleged that Electricity Department disconnected power supply to the power looms which led to calling of strikes. On the fateful day large number of weavers and others started demonstrating against the action by calling strikes. They blocked the road stopped the movement of vehicle, when the police party went Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41508 of 2013 (3) dt.07-10-2013 2 there to disperse the mob and clear the road blockade persons at stage started exhorting to go for rampage. The persons who were demonstrating started brick batting upon the police and ultimately in that commotion one Dy. S. P., namely, Sukhdeo Mehra was killed. The petitioner was found there as a man in the mob which was in high volte in agitated stage. The persons who were leading mob exhorting to kill the police personnel and slogans were raised against the administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and one another person was picked up by the police at 9.15 A.M. and all incident had taken place thereafter and court below wrongly refused to discharge the petitioner. If the First Information Report is to be seen very minutely the time has not been mentioned as to when this petitioner was picked up but the fact is that he was there in the mob and before they could have been picked up the mob had started batteling and jostling with the police, mob started threshing the police personnel also whereupon the Magistrate gave order for lathi charge. He further submits that the court below has wrongly come to a conclusion and it is an error of record that that the petitioner had actively participated in rampage and created all Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41508 of 2013 (3) dt.07-10-2013 3 sorts of nuisance with the mob. He can best be charged under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention, relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Nawab Ali Vs. The state of Uttar Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1974 SC 1228, (ii) Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli and another Vs. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1955 SC 287 and (iii) Chikkarange Gowda and others Vs. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1956 SC 731. He further submits when an error of record was located, the petitioner filed a review application. The court below dealt with the merit of the case but at the end arrived to conclusion, review application was not maintainable and submits that this order may be interfered by this Court and the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration. He further submits that he was not physically present at the time when the bomb was lobed and Dy. Superintendent of Police was burnt alive. Learned counsel for the State submits that serious allegation is there. The mob resorted violence in which police personnel was killed by rioters and so much so from the First Information Report itself shows that the brick batting was started before the petitioner was arrested from the mob. It has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41508 of 2013 (3) dt.07-10-2013 4 further been submitted that the mob has used lethal weapons including fire arms and bombs must have been arranged earlier and it will not be a fit case for interference by this Court. He has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 368. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties at the stage of discharge as has been held by the Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhid, reported in 2005 SCC(Cri) 415 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held meticulous examination of facts at the stage of framing of charge or discharge is not permissible and the Court has to examine the material that has been brought by the prosecution not the plea of defence. Here if the First Information Report is to be
Legal Reasoning
looked into there is no dispute that the petitioner was there in the mob and before could have been picked up there was an exhorting made by the people “Maro Date Raho” and just thereafter they have started brick batting to the police personnel whereon the situation has turned violent, Magistrate deputed directed for lathi charge. Of course it is a fact that so far use of bomb, dagger and stick were used at the later stage Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41508 of 2013 (3) dt.07-10-2013 5 but the role of the petitioner in arranging demonstration which turned violent led to burn of police personal alive will be examined at trial stage. In a case of 149 of the Indian Penal Code the role and involvement of the petitioner cannot be seen at this stage. It can only be seen at the stage of trial about involvement of petitioner in serious commotion where the public property has been damaged including police officer was burnt alive. This Court does find any merit in this application. At this stage it is very difficult to go for meticulous examination to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in a case when the mob had used such lethal weapons and the petitioner was in the mob. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, the court below is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the party. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)