BHOLA DUBEY @ VISWA PRAKASH DWIVEDI v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

on bail granted by this High Court. The learned counsel for the respondents also refers to Annexure-1 i.e. F.I.R. under Bettia (T) P.S. Case No. 91 of 2007 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to robbery in the post office and it is pointed out that the petitioner is also an accused in that case and he has been remanded in that case. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a veteran criminal involved in several cases relating to series of crime and that he has filed this application only with a view to harass the police authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to confessional statement of the petitioner at Annexure-17 to the rejoinder dated 5.2.2009, points out that in the concluding portion of the confessional statement the time of recording confession as mentioned by the police officer was 16:30 hours but there is cutting over it. The learned counsel for the respondent replied that this is bona fide correction overwriting that was simply made to correct a slip of pen and this cannot - 5 - go to discredit the process of recording of confessional statement and further that this matter will be considered at the time of trial for taking a final view. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that on mobile no. 99558400 vide Sanha S.D. entry 1000 dated 4.12.2007 one mobile with sim connection no. 9955840050 is said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner but subsequently it was found that this mobile was not in the name of petitioner but to some other person, namely, Abhay Kumar Mishra. To this question, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that may be the sim number was in the name of some other person but it is possible that the sim in the name of some other person can be used in the mobile of some other person. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 3.12.2007 and he was detained by police for more than 24 hours and that he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.12.2007. It was also argued that during police custody, the petitioner was tortured. In reply to this submission, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in his main case the petitioner does not say anywhere that he was arrested on 3.12.2007, though subsequently, has tried to develop the matter by stating in his supplementary affidavit that he was arrested on 3.12.2007 but in that supplementary affidavit also the time of arrest is not mentioned. The learned counsel further referred to Annexure-2 i.e. the remand order dated 5.12.2007 to the petition. The - 6 - Annexure-2 mentions that on 5.12.2007 the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for remand and at that time he had not complained any ill-treatment at the hands of escort party and he had also stated that he had sufficient material for his defence and that one Om Prakash Debey will make pairvi on his behalf. Thus, at the time of remand, the petitioner does not complain of any ill-treatment at the hands of the police party. The remand order mentions that the petitioner had some injury on his left thumb which stated to have been caused at the time of his arrest and medical treatment was also order to be provided to him. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that police had assaulted the petitioner and had caused injuries on his left thumb which was grievous in nature and it was also submitted that fracture injury had been caused to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide Annexure-7 doctor had found one injury on the petitioner’s left thumb and had treated him and had advised for x-ray but x- ray was not done. Here, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the normal treatment was done as the injury sustained by the petitioner was simple. So far not doing of the X-ray is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was subsequently released on bail and even after his release on bail, he did not get his thumb x- ray in order to show that there was a fracture in his thumb and this goes to show that the allegation of causing any fracture - 7 - injury is not correct. The learned counsel for the State- respondent submitted that the petitioner being a hardened criminal, involved in several cases, was apprehended by police in the instant case i.e. Bettia Mufassil P.S. Case No. 156 of 2007 and that since the petitioner had tried to resist the arrest some superficial injury was caused. It is also submitted that on finding sufficient material against the petitioner chargesheet has been submitted against him in the case and cognizance of offence has also been taken and the petitioner has to face trial in the case. So far the question of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the State says that no wrong has been committed by the police or any other authorities and whatever has been done with that was done with lawful authority for the purpose of lawful prosecution of the accused in a case. Thus hearing, I find no merit in this case and the same is dismissed. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-