The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5996 of 2012 with B.A. No. 501 of 2013 …Petitioner [B.A. No. 5996/2012] Mahendra Singh Kharwar Rajendra Singh Kharwar @ Rajendra Singh …Petitioner[B.A. No. 501/2013] Versus State of Jharkhand .........Opposite Party. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL -------
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioners : M/s Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, A.P.P. 04/Dated: 8 --------- th March, 2013 1. Counsel appearing for the applicants in both the bail applications submitted that the opposite party-State is not laying any evidence before the concerned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2010 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa and therefore, they are in jail since January, 2010. The highest case of the prosecution is based upon Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and they have already undergone sentence type custody of approximately 38 months and therefore, they have prayed for their release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that true it is that the witnesses in this Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2010 are the Police Personnel, some of them are serving in Central Reserve Police Force whereas some are serving as a State Police of the State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned A.P.P. of the State submitted that they will take immediate steps to see that the prosecution witnesses may go to the concerned trial court for giving evidence in sessions trial. On merits, it is also submitted that previously, the bail applications preferred by these very applicants have been rejected by this Court once and this is the second attempt and there is no change in circumstance except efflux of time. 4. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the prosecution is not bringing their witnesses in the trial court, who are the police personnel. Some of them are serving in the Central Reserve Police Force and some of them are serving as a State Police. 2. 5. It is misfortune for the State that the Police Personnel are not going before the court concerned for giving their evidence as their prosecution witnesses though they are cited as a prosecution witnesses in the charge- sheet nor the high ranking officers are taking any step for securing their presence in the court. Time and again, the Home Secretary of Jharkhand State namely, Mr. J.B. Tubid, has stated before this Court in similarly situated other matters that now a policy decision has been taken by the State to stop the salary/pension of the police officers or doctors, who are not going to court as a prosecution witness if they are mentioned as a charge-sheet witnesses. These officers had also conveyed to this Court that they are going to convene a meeting on 9th February, 2013. A meeting was also convened with the Public Prosecutors and few of the high ranking police officers in which also there was a decision at length about the police, who are cited as a witnesses in the charge-sheet. It appears that this type of resolution is nothing but a Paper Tiger. It also appears that the high ranking officers are not taking proper care of their sessions trials. It appears that there should not an indifferent approach on the part of the Investigating Officer or on the part of the Superintendent of the concerned district. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to see that the police personnel, who are cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet, may go to the court to give their evidences. Few of the police personnel are of Central Reserve Police Force. The high ranking police officers of the concerned district could have consulted with Central Reserve Police Force Head so that the prosecution witnesses, who are serving in the Central Reserve Police Force, may go to the concerned trial court as witnesses. It appears that no such step has been taken by the Investigating Officer in this case nor by the Superintendent of Police of District-Garhwa, nor they have brought this aspect of the matter to the notice of the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand or to the notice of the Inspector General of Police. Their indifferent approach cannot be tolerated. 6. I therefore, direct the applicants to join “Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, 13 th Battalion” as opposite party no. 2 in both the bail applications. 7. 8. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during course of the day. Notice upon the newly joined opposite party no. 2. 3. 9. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Assistant Solicitor General of India waives notice on behalf of the newly joined opposite party no. 2 in both the bail applications. 10. We hereby, direct the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to supply a copy of these bail applications alongwith annexures and all other relevant documents to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the newly joined opposite party no.2. It is assured by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State that he will supply the aforesaid copy of the applications to the Assistant Solicitor General of India. 11. It is assured by the Assistant Solicitor General of India that he will take proper instructions on or before the next date of hearing that why the police personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force are not going to the concerned trial court to give evidence. 12. As the Investigating Officer of Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2007, district-Garhwa has not taken any care to secure the presence of the prosecution witnesses in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-I in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2010, I hereby, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand not to pay salary to the Investigating Officer namely, Sri Parmanand Paswan, till he secures the presence of the police witnesses, who are prosecution witnesses, in the aforesaid sessions trial pending before the trial court. It is conveyed by the learned A.P.P. that the next date of hearing of the trial is on 23rd March, 2013. 13. 14. The matter is adjourned on 5th April, 2013. Registry is directed to convey this order initially by 'FAX' to the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand and also to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa district. VK/ (D.N. Patel, J)