High Court · 2012

nection with CID P.S Case No. 18 of 2012 under Section 120(B)/436/201 IPC. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police. At the relevant time, he was the Of ficer-in-Charge of the Sonapur Police Station. On 13-12-2009, one Nirmal Doloi h ad lodged a first information before the Officer-in-Charge, Sonapur Police Stati on stating that his brother Harakanta Doloi and five members of his family were killed by some unknown miscreants while they were sleeping in their house at nig ht. On the basis of the same, Sonapur P .S Case No. 134 of 2009 under Section 30 2/201/120(B)/34 IPC was registered. The said Sonapur P.S Case No. 134 of 2009 wa s subsequently transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Assam for investigation on 19-12-2009. The Inspector of Police, CID, Assam submitted a FIR dated 17-02-2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, CID Police Station, Assam alleging that during investigation of Sonapur P.S Case No. 134 of 2009, certain irregularities committed by differe nt officials with some unknown culprits with ulterior motive were detected. Inso far the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that on 17-12-2009 a group of persons of the village Jugdal on the instigation of the petitioner, who was the then Officer-in-Charge of Sonapur Police Station, had set fire to the house of the deceased, Harakanta Doloi where a total number of six persons were murdered. According to the said information, the same was done by the petitioner to destr oy the material evidence of Sonapur P.S Case No. 134 of 2009 and to obstruct the investigation from proceeding on the right track. Another police officer and an officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam have been named in the said F IR and the first informant alleged that the petitioner and the other two persons along with some other unknown culprits criminally conspired to destroy material evidence of the case by setting the place of occurrence on fire and committing other acts as mentioned therein to protect the real culprits of the case. On the basis of the same, the above noted CID P.S Case No. 18 of 2012 has been registe red under Section 120(B)/436/201 IPC. The petition for pre arrest bail was moved before this Court on 24-02-2012, on w hich date this Hon’ble Court directed the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam to produce the case diary on 01-03-2012. Accordingly, the case diary has been p roduced. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.S . Sinha, learned Addl. P.P, Assam. Also perused the case diary of CID P.S Case N o. 18 of 2012. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel submits that the multiple murders in the Sonapur P.S Case No. 134 of 2009 created a law and order situation in the Sonapur area a nd the petitioner being the Officer-in-Charge of the Sonapur Police Station had to devote most of his time to control the said situation. Since he was busy with the law and order situation, he could not take immediate steps regarding the bu rning down of the house of the deceased. He further submits that the petitioner has since been transferred and is presently attached with the police reserve. He submits that the petitioner is in no position to influence the investigation an d considering the fact that he is a serving police man with a family to look aft er, he should be granted pre-arrest bail. Learned Sr. counsel further submits th at there is considerable delay in the filing of the FIR which reflects lack of b onafides on the part of the CID investigation team. Learned Sr. counsel also str essed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not at all be necessa ry in this case. On the other hand, Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. P.P, Assam submits from the ca se diary that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner and the p etitioner being a serving police man, he is in a position to influence the inves tigation. He further submits that it is necessary to take some measures so as to instil some confidence in the witnesses, who are simple village people and who may be afraid to speak out against a serving police man, who was at the relevant time, the principal police officer of the area. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and also perused the cas e diary produced. The case diary reveals adverse materials against the petitioner. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge of the Sonapur Police Station. T he allegation against the petitioner amongst others is causing destruction or di sappearance of vital evidence of Sonapur P.S Case No. 134 of 2009. Prima facie, serious acts of omission and commission have been attributed to the petitioner a s the Officer-in-Charge of the Sonapur Police Station. The petitioner was the Of ficer-in-Charge of the Sonapur Police Station till the month of October, 2010. T he house of the deceased was set on fire on 17-12-2009. According to the petitio ner, as available from the materials in the case diary, the village Jugdal is a very interior village far away from the police station and that the police had n o information about this incident immediately. But from December, 2009 to Octobe r, 2010, when the petitioner was the Officer-in-charge of the said police statio n, he did not take any steps in this regard. On the other hand, statements of various persons so far recorded have implicate d the petitioner in this incident. From a perusal of the case diary, the involve ment of other police officers in this case cannot be ruled out. However, I refra in from commenting any further, lest the same be construed to be on the merit of the accusation. The investigation is now at a very crucial stage. The petitione r is not an ordinary accused. He is a police officer and was the Officer-in-Char ge of the Sonapur police station at the relevant time. He may have been transfer red out from the said police station but considering the extremely serious natur e of the accusation against the petitioner and the delicate stage of investigati on, I am of the considered opinion that the present is not a fit case to grant p re arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for pre arrest bail is rejected. Case diary is returned back to the Addl. P. P., Assam. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for th e purpose of considering the prayer for pre arrest bail and should not be taken to be on the merit of the accusation. The Investigating Officer would conduct th e investigation on its merit, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order .