Shashi Kant Sharma @ Santu v. The State Of Bihar

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 9 03-05-2013 We have heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Special Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. In this Public Interest Litigation filed by the Socio Political Activist the relief sought is for an investigation by the CBI in Ara (Nawada) PS Case No. 139 dated 1.6.2012 instituted under Section 302, 34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The deceased is stated to be one Late Barmeshwar Mukhiya. The FIR has been lodged by the son of the deceased Kumar Indu Bhushan, aged approximately 38 years. Patna High Court CWJC No.19780 of 2012 (2) dt.03-05-2013 2 Learned Counsel the petitioner submits Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah in his report dated 6.6.2012 had suggested that inter state criminals were involved and therefore the CBI would be a better investigating agency, more equipped scientifically and resource wise. The State Government on 6.6.2012 had itself consented to hand over the investigation to the CBI. The CBI initially on 13.9.2012 referred to man power constraint for declining to take over investigation. Subsequently on 26.9.2012 it opined that no inter state gang appears to be involved. The submission therefore is that this Court may direct the CBI to take over the investigation as the petitioner does not have faith in the State Police. Once a crime has been committed, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the guilty are punished. The State itself had opined that a CBI enquiry was in the fitness of things. The CBI cannot decline it by citing man power constraint or an opinion contrary to what the State Police states. The investigation being at an advanced stage can be no justification for the CBI to deny the same. If a crime is committed within the Sate, whether a CBI investigation should be directed in the same or not is primarily for the State to decide. The jurisdiction of the Court may or may not arise for interference and directions dependant on a host of factors, the magnitude of the crime, manner of investigation etc. In the facts of the present case, the State Government may have opined for CBI investigation but if the CBI has cited man power constraint, we are not persuaded to thrust the investigation on the CBI which may only prove counter productive for taking the trial to its logical conclusion expeditiously. No material has been placed before us by the petitioner with facts and figures that the contention of the CBI with regard to severe man power constraint was not justified. Patna High Court CWJC No.19780 of 2012 (2) dt.03-05-2013 3 The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur has not returned any positive finding with regard to involvement of inter state criminals. His report states that on basis of investigation so far inter state criminals are involved. It is an inconclusive report. The CBI obviously applied its mind at the relevant time taking in to consideration the nature of the crime, materials collected during investigation, the manner in which the investigation was proceeding along with its man power constraint and arrived at the conclusion that there was no requirement for a CBI investigation at this stage imposing unnecessary burden on it. Cautioning against casual exercise of power to direct CBI investigation the Supreme Court in (2010) 3 SCC 571 (State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal ((2010) 3 SCC 571 observed as follows:- to CBI issuing a direction

#70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations. 71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya31 this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any Patna High Court CWJC No.19780 of 2012 (2) dt.03-05-2013 4 other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.” As noticed above, the informant is the son of the deceased. We are of the opinion that nobody would be more interested than him that real culprits are brought to book and that the investigation and the trial are not permitted to be derailed. He does not appear to be complaining. The writ application is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) Snkumar/-