Patna High Court - Orders
Santosh Kumar Bharti & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2010
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.8547 of 2008
1. SANTOSH KUMAR BHARTI, Son of Late Vakil Prasad Yadav,
resident of village Dhobiniya, P.S. - Navagachhiya, District -
Bhagalpur, at present resident of Police Line, Police Station Buxar
(Town), District - Buxar.
2. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Sri Daroga Singh, resident of village
Jarlahi Mathiya, Police Station - Bikramganj, District - Rohtas at
Sasaram, at present resident of Police Line, Police Station, Buxar
(Town), District - Buxar.
------------- Petitioners.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- Opposite Party.
******
For the petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP.
******
04. 07.05.2010Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and State.
This application has been filed by two petitioners who are named along with some other accused persons under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by Shri R.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in connection with G.R. No. 1847 of 2006 arising out of Koransarai P.S. Case No. 43 of 2006, taking cognizance for the offences under Section 25(1-
b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
The relevant fact in this case is that on the basis of self-statement of Sub-divisional Police Officer of Dumraon, Sunil Kumar given at 8.30 A.M. on 12.11.2006. The case was registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act against the five persons including these two petitioners was registered. -2- As per the informant, while he along with the Sub- divisional Officer, Dumraon and police party was moving around Dumraon Sub-division in order to look after the law and order situation of the area, where Section 144 Cr.P.C. was promulgated due to ensuing by call of the Panchayat. The team suddenly found a grey coloured Scorpio bearing Registration No. DL-9CG-9596 with dark window panes moving towards Koransarai in spite of signal to stop the vehicle tried to speed up, however it could be stopped ahead on chase near Koransarai Police Station with the help of police personnel of the concerned Police Station.
It is further stated that on search the driver along with one police personnel (the petitioner no.1) was found sitting in the front seat and in the back seat petitioner no. 2 with two others was found sitting. On queries, the petitioners disclosed their identities as Security Guards provided by the Government to M.L.A. Dadan Yadav @ Dadan Pahalwan. Two government Carbine and 9 m.m. bullets were also recovered from the petitioners, whereas two other rifles along with some bullets were recovered from the other two persons sitting on back seat of the vehicle, who on demand failed to show any document authorizing them to possess the arms. Two Nokia Mobile Phones and one Rifle license and about 500 pieces of handbills of Prajatantrik Lok Ekta Dal were also recovered and from the dash board of the vehicle a Smart Card of the vehicle was also recovered disclosing the name of the owner as Satish Chandra of New Delhi.
-3-
The materials recovered Carbine and Magazin thereof purportedly issued by Buxar Police Lines were seized under a seizure list in presence of Sub-divisional Officer and Anchal Adhikari, Buxar. Copy thereof was handed over to the accused persons whereas the government arms and ammunitions were handed over to the police.
After due investigation charge sheet was submitted against First Information Report named accused persons including the petitioners keeping the investigation pending regarding the seized arms. Subsequently, after further investigation, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Dadan Pahalwan and his wife whose names were disclosed by the accused persons but at their instance the order of cognizance appears to have been quashed by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 51441 of 2007 vide order dated 7th August, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order of cognizance, on submission of first charge sheet against the named accused persons submitted that the two petitioners being police personnel duly authorized to keep arms and ammunitions with them and where duty as body guard of M.L.A. Dadan Pahalwan and were going to receive him at Mohania on his call. It is also contended that the other occupants of the vehicle were none else than the private body guards of the M.L.A. and were holding the arms for which license was issued in the name of the M.L.A. and his wife. It is also contended that no offence is made out against the petitioners and moreover, -4- subsequent order of cognizance against M.L.A. and his wife has already been quashed by this court. So, permitting the case against the petitioners is not desirable.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the case and impugned order submitted that the petitioners being police personnel were expected to give positive response to the signals being given by informant and his team comprising of Gazetted Officer and police personnel and also not to permit, the persons having arms and ammunitions without any authority to occupy the vehicle.
My attention was further drawn towards statements of the two petitioners recorded under Sections 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they have clearly stated that they made attempt not to permit the private body guard to join their company but at the dictates of wife of the M.L.A. they had to concede.
This prima facie indicates that the petitioners had every knowledge that other companions of the vehicle with them are in possession of fire arms and ammunitions for which they were not entitled.
So far order of this court, quashing further proceedings of the court below with respect to two persons not named in the First Information Report is concerned, their case is at different footing. They were neither named nor found at the spot and considering all such aspects of cognizance with respect to the petitioners. But, so far as the instant case is concerned, the -5- petitioners are not only named in the First Information Report but, with full knowledge permitted some persons not authorized to have arms and ammunitions to accompany them on the same vehicle. Such kind of activities needs to be checked and growing indiscipline amongst such persons if not controlled at this stage it may put adverse impact upon the entire society. I do not find any reason to quash the impugned order taking cognizance against them.
It is further made clear that none interference in the impugned order shall not cause any prejudice to defence of the petitioners at any stage.
The petitioners are at further liberty to agitate their points before the court below at the time of hearing on the point of charge and in the event the court below on consideration of entire outcome of the investigation finds clinching evidence in their favour to exonerate them or not to proceed with trial against them, the court below shall pass appropriate order.
With this liberty and observation, this application stands disposed of.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Rajeev/