The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.218 of 2025 & I.A. Nos.38 & 39 of 2025 (An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Md. Suhel … -versus- Petitioner State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Ansari, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.02.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this Criminal Misc. Petition has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- (a)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon’ble Court directing: (i) The O.P No. 3 & 4 to submit the CCTV footage of the Plantsite P.S, Rourkela for the intervening period starting dated 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024 without any excuses; CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 1 of 15 of unlawful detention (ii) The O.P No. 6 to investigate into the allegations and confinement at the P.S followed by the false implication, illegal arrest and unwarranted judicial custody of the medically unfit petitioner and his old aged ailing father in Plantsite P.S Case No. 919 dated 07.11.2024 for committing offence U/s 20(b](ii)(c)/29 NDPS Act, 1989 corresponding to Spl. GR Case No. 43 of 2024; (iii) The O.P No. 6 to substantiate the mechanism put in place to ensure that the investigation shall be performed with equal alacrity and fairness irrespective of the status of the persons involved and in an expeditious manner under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court. (iv) In the alternative, the State Government to constitute. SIT preferably headed by an officer of honesty, integrity and impeccable service record of IPS Rank to probe out the extremely unfortunate and malicious action performed during the intervening period from 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024 at Plantsite P.S, Rourkela.” 2. The facts in precise are that on 05.11.2024 at about 1.40 P.M., one Md. Nawaz Ansari
Legal Reasoning
lodged an FIR against the petitioner and two others for an incident occurring on 04.11.2024 with allegation of assault on him by means of iron rod resulting in injury to his eyes and also threatening him of dire consequence. On the above FIR, Rourkela Plantsite PS Case No.909 dated 05.11.2024 was registered. CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 2 of 15 Similarly, the sister of the petitioner lodged an FIR against Md. Nawaz Ansari, the informant in Plantsite PS Case No.909 of 2024 and four others for an incident occurring on 05.11.2024 at about 10 A.M. with allegation of tearing her clothes as well as assault to her neck by means of sword, bhujali, steel pipe and iron rods, resulting in injuries to her hand, chest and neck. Accordingly, Rourkela Plantsite P.S. Case No.911 dated 05.11.2024 was registered against Md. Nawaz Ansari, the informant in Plantsite PS Case No.909 of 2024 and others. According to the petitioner, since Rourkela Plantsite PS Case No.909 of 2024 has been registered against him and his family members, his father first went to the Police Station followed by him and his family members to meet the IIC and IO for necessary information and assistance. On their arrival, both the parties were questioned and allowed to go, save and except, the petitioner and his father and thereby, they were kept in unlawful custody, but suddenly on 07.11.2024, at about 4 P.M. to 4.30 PM, the petitioner and his father were brought out of the CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 3 of 15 Police Station to Reserve Police Office, Rourkela and their medical examination was done in RGH and they were finally forwarded to the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rourkela alleging their involvement in Plantsite PS Case No. 919 dated 07.11.2024 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.43 of 2024 for committing offence U/Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, claiming unlawful detention, false implication, illegal arrest and unwarranted judicial custody, the petitioner has approached this Court in this application with prayers indicated in the preceding paragraph. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr. Md. Mustaq Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually submits by reiterating the facts as stated in the CRLMP application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and unlawfully detained in police custody for a period of two days. Accordingly, Mr. Md. Mustaq Ansari prays to direct a fair and impartial probe by the CBI in the matter. Mr. Ansari CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 4 of 15 further presses I.A. Nos.38 & 39 of 2025 for directing the OP Nos.3 & 4 to submit the CCTV footage of the Rourkela Plantsite PS for the intervening period of 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024 and to stay the investigation or any further action in Plantsite PS Case No.919 dated 07.11.2024. It is also submitted by Mr. Ansari that the facts involved in this case reveals a classic case of unlawful detention, false implication and illegal arrest of the petitioner and thereby, the State Government may kindly be directed to constitute an SIT preferably headed by an Officer in the cadre of IPS to probe the matter. 3.2. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, highlighting the facts of the case submits that the petitioner has brought out allegation against the administration without producing any valid document and thereby, the petitioner be penalized with heavy cost for wasting the valuable time of the Court CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 5 of 15 4. After having considered the rival submissions, upon perusal of the materials placed on record, since the petitioner in his prayer has sought for a direction to OP No.6(CBI) to investigate into the allegations of unlawful detention and confinement at the Police Station followed by false implication, illegal arrest and unlawful detention in custody, but whether an accused can claim such relief as of right, this Court considers it useful to refer to the following precedents in the matter relating to right of the parties to ask for investigation:- 4.1. In Preeti Singh v. State of U.P.; 2023 SCC Online Allahabad 1410, while answering a question whether the accused person has any right or hearing at the investigation stage or to question the manner in which evidence is being collected by claiming a direction for fair investigation, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court after surveying a catena of decisions of Apex Court has held thus:- “26. Thus, it is very much clear that at the stage of investigation, the accused has no CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 6 of 15 right to be heard or she cannot forward to claim fair investigation only on the ground that according to her the matter was has been wrongly handed over to Crime Branch and simply for the reason that initially the petitioner was informant and subsequently she had been arrayed as accused in the First Information Report in question. From perusal of record of petition we do not find any ground worth withdrawing the investigation from the Crime Branch and to transfer the same to some other agency in view of the law as discussed hereinabove. 4.2 In Romila Thaper & others v. Union of India; (2018) 10 SCC 753, the Apex Court has held thus:- “30 xx xx xx xxx xxx the accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency, or to do investigation in a particular manner court-monitored investigation.” including for 4.3 In Union of India & another vrs. W.N. Chadha; 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171, the Apex has held thus:- “120. Xx xx The respondent who is a named accused in the FIR has no locus standi at this stage to question the manner in which the evidence is to be collected. However, it is open for the respondent to challenge the admissibility and reliability of the evidence only at the stage of trial in case the investigation ends up in filing a CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 7 of 15 final report under Section 173 of the Code indicating that an offence appears to have been committed.” 4.4. In C.B.I v. Rajesh Gandhi; (1996) 11 SCC 253, the Apex Court has held thus:- “8. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the first respondent either. The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate does not attract principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with xx xx.” 4.5. In Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra; (2023) 5 SCC 802, the Apex Court in paragraph-34 has quoted with approval the paragraph- 54 of the decision in Himanshu Kumar & others vrs. State of Chhatisgarh and others; (2023) 12 SCC 592 wherein it has been held thus:- “54. It has been held by this Court in CBI Vrs. Rajesh Gandhi(supra) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.” CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 8 of 15 5. From an analysis of the precedents as laid down in the cases referred to above, it can certainly be said that the accused cannot ask as of right for fresh or further investigation in a particular matter or manner. It is also clear that the accused has no locus standi to question the manner in which evidence is to be collected, but he has right to challenge the admissibility and reliability of the evidence only at the trial in case the investigation resulted in submission of final form indicating that an offence appears to have been committed by the accused. The accused cannot have any say as to who should investigate the offences with which he is charged, nor can it be claimed as a matter of right by the accused to conduct the investigation in a particular manner. 6. It is of course true that the petitioner who is an accused in Plantsite PS Case No.909 of 2024 has sought for a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in this case, but the petitioner has not CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 9 of 15 produced a single scrap of paper to show that they have been unlawfully arrested or detained in custody. Had there been any unlawful arrest and detention of the petitioner in custody, he/they could have raised those issues before the Court concerned, to which he/they have been forwarded at the first instance, but it is not known as to whether the petitioner has raised or alleged their grievance/excesses committed on them before the Court concerned, to which he/they has/have been forwarded in the matter relating to Plantsite PS Case No. 919 of 2024 for commission of alleged offence U/Ss.20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act in Special G.R. Case No.43 of 2024. This Court is also conscious of the right of an accused for free and fair investigation, but there is serious allegation against the Police authority for unlawful arrest and detention of the petitioner in custody, but the same is without any document or materials, rather the petitioner prays for a direction to OP Nos. 3 & 4 to submit the CCTV footage of Rourkela Plantsite Police Station for the intervening period from 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024, CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 10 of 15 but the petitioner himself has stated in paragraph-III in CRLMP that the petitioner and his father had voluntarily went to the Police Station along with others in connection with Rourkela Plantsite PS Case No. 909 dated 05.11.2024 which presupposes that the petitioner was never lifted to the Police Station by the Police from their house or from anywhere. 7. Additionally, it is never disputed by the petitioner that a criminal case was registered against him and two others in Rourkela Plantsite PS Case No.909 of 2024. It is also not disputed that Plantsite PS Case No.919 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioner, his father and another for possessing and transporting commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja and they were accordingly detained by the Police party. It is, however, true that the petitioner alleges false implication in the case, but could not substantiate the same by producing any material, save and except by averring the same in his Criminal Misc. Petition. On the other hand, the copy FIR and other CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 11 of 15 papers produced by the petitioner in Plantsite PS Case No.919 of 2025 reveals about the allegation against the petitioner for unauthorized possession and transportation of commercial quantity of Contraband Ganja and some independent persons as well as officials like Executive Magistrate have been involved in the recovery, search and seizure of the Contraband Ganja in the matter. A copy of the paper stated to be a notice U/S.50(1) of the NDPS Act served to the petitioner also reveals endorsement in Hindi “he understand the subject written in the said notice and he is desirous of his personal search by a Magistrate” and accordingly, the documents annexed with the CRLMP also reveals about the search of the petitioner in presence of Executive Magistrate and therefore, at this stage, without any document on material, this Court cannot consider false implication for the petitioner in NDPS case. 8. It is also not known as to how the CCTV footage would help the petitioner in establishing the CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 12 of 15 wrongful confinement and illegal detention, since the petitioner himself stated in his application that he had voluntarily visited the Police Station in connection with Plantsite PS Case No. 909 of 2024 and that too, no allegation of assault has been made against the Police party. In any event, had there been any wrongful confinement of the petitioner, he could have independently approached the concerned Court for declaring his detention in custody illegal for violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It is also equally true that the petitioner could have produced the arrest memo to show as to when he was taken into custody by the Police, but the petitioner has not filed such arrest memo or forwarding report in this case. The initiation of NDPS case against the petitioner discloses the involvement of independent and impartial person like private witnesses so also official witnesses in the investigation, but nothing has been produced to indicate about false implication of the petitioner in this case. In absence of any documents or materials, this Court is not in a position to comment in the matter CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 13 of 15 relating for false implication of the petitioner. In the sequel events, this Court also does not find any reason to stay the further investigation in the matter in Plantsite PS Case No.919 of 2024. 9. On a careful analysis of the facts narrated in the CRLMP petition together with the documents supplied by the petitioner and taking into account the law laid down by different Constitutional Courts in the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for investigation by CBI at this stage is untenable nor the Court considers it in the interest of justice to direct the State Government to constitute SIT headed by an Officer of IPS cadre for probe in the matter and therefore, prima facie there is no justification to direct OP Nos.3 & 4 to submit the CCTV footage of Rourkela Plantsite Police Station in the intervening period from 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024. 10. In the sequence of events, since no ground is made out by the petitioner to persuade this CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 14 of 15 Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the CBI to probe in the matter, there is no need for the Court to direct for such investigation. However, this Court must advise the Investigating Agency to perform its duty in a free, fair and transparent manner. 11. In the result, the CRLMP so also I.A. Nos.38 & 39 of 2025 being devoid of merit, stand dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is
Decision
no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th day of February, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Feb-2025 15:04:02 CRLMP No. 218 of 2025 Page 15 of 15