Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 29 July, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No.2683 of 2022
-----
Pankaj Kumar Yadav ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-II
For the Resp.Nos.5&6 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the IT Department : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Asstt. S.G.I.
-----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
04/Dated 29th July, 2022
1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.
2. Reference may be made to the order dated 17.06.2022. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties on 17.06.2022, has passed the order directing the State- respondent to file affidavit replying the questions as contained at paragraph-2 thereof, which reads as under:
"2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon hearing, the directions are being passed upon the State to file affidavit replying the following questions:-
(i) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is directed to apprise this Court as to whether the State Government was having any intelligence report about the movement of the processions of 8,000 to 10,000 people at the Mahatma Gandhi Road (Main Road at Ranchi).
(ii) In case, there was intelligence report to that effect, then why the casualties have taken place and injury has been sustained by the Police Personnel including the Senior Superintendent of Police as also the death has occurred, as per report.
(iii) In case, there was no intelligence information, the State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is directed to apprise this Court, why such a major failure on the part of the State was there leading to disturbing the entire capital town of the State of Jharkhand where mob resorted to stone pelting and firing?[2]
(iv) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is directed to apprise this Court, as to whether the initial means to restrain the gathering, i.e., lathi charge or use of water canon etc. has been resorted to or not.
(v) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is directed to apprise this Court as to whether, the main accused persons named in the FIR have been apprehended or not and if yes, the details thereof, along with the parental and addresses be referred in the affidavit.
(vi) The State of Jharkhand is also directed to apprise this Court about status of criminal records and the cases instituted against one Nawab Chisti of Mani Tola, P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi, who was running a „WHATSAPP‟ group as also allegedly having closed connection with the Cabinet Minister & M.LA., as per the statement made at para-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.06.2022.
(vii) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is further directed to apprise this Court, if any FIR has been instituted, then whether investigation has commenced in the cases, registered against said Nawab Chisti, if yes then what is the status of such investigation.
If the investigation has been completed, let a copy of the final form be produced by appending it to the affidavit to be filed on behalf of the State.
(viii) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is to apprise this Court that under whose permission, the procession consisting of 8,000 to 10,000 people was allowed to be proceeded without any Police protection in the Main Road at Ranchi, known as Mahatma Gandhi Road.
If such permission was there, let the copy of such permission be appended to the affidavit to be filed.
If there was no such permission, then how the District Administration as also the Police Administration had allowed such procession in the Main Road at Ranchi.
(ix) The State of Jharkhand/Competent Authority is further directed to apprise this Court as to what is the status of the criminal case instituted, as has been appended under Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
Let the progress of the criminal investigation be produced under the sealed cover.
(x) Apart from the above queries, let para-wise reply to the averment made in the writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit dated 16.06.2022 be also filed."
3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-II appearing for the State of Jharkhand although has tried to impress upon us that the statement about intelligence report is there at paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit but, we, on its consideration, have found that the paragraph-10 of the said counter affidavit does not speak about the intelligence report.
4. We find it deliberate attempt and deliberate action by avoiding to answer the queries as also the query no.(viii). [3]
5. In above view of the matter, we are inclined to impose a heavy cost upon the authorities, but we are refraining ourselves to do it today as we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the State.
6. Let a proper affidavit answering all the queries made by this Court be filed and if it is found on the next date of hearing that either of the queries have not been answered, then this Court will be compelled to take strict action.
7. This Court, since, has called upon the case diary which has been considered by us from which we have found that the police personnel posted in the Daily Market Police Station, having jurisdiction where the disturbance has taken place, has stated that in course of investigation that if the CCTV footage will be shown to him, they will identify the culprits who are involved in creating such disturbance but this Court is failed to understand as to why the CCTC footage is not being utilized which can be the best evidence which will be helpful in further investigation to know the larger conspiracy.
8. This Court fails to understand as to why the investigating agency has not shown the CCTV footage to the police personal posted in the Daily Market Police Station, who, at the time of occurrence was on duty and confronted with the illegal doers.
9. It has been informed that the recording of the CCTV footage has been taken in the pen-drive and it has been sent in the laboratory for its expert opinion.
[4]
10.This Court had put a query to the learned State counsel as to whether before sending the pen-drive containing the CCTV footage, had it been shown to the police personnel who were discharging their duty at the time of occurrence for identification of the illegal doers, the answer has been given in negative.
This Court had further put a query as to whether the hard-copy of the CCTV footage has been seized or not? It has been informed by referring to the case diary that it has not been seized.
11.The question arises that unless the hard-copy of the CCTV footage of the date of occurrence will be seized, the expert opinion on the basis of the pen-drive containing therein the footage, will have no value, as such, we are prima facie of the view that the matter requires investigation by the Special Agency.
12.Let the State response to the same by filing affidavit.
13.It has been informed that immediately after the occurrence, Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) was constituted under the S.S.P., Ranchi but the aforesaid S.I.T. has not been allowed to carry out the investigation since the S.S.P., Ranchi had been transferred all of a sudden and now the matter is being investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.), therefore, submission has been made that if the S.I.T. would have been allowed to carry out the investigation it would have been very purposeful since it was the S.S.P., Ranchi who [5] himself has sustained injury on the spot and as such he was the best person to identify the illegal doers.
Further, the officer In-charge of Daily Market Police Station had also been transferred who was also at the spot and best witness to identify the illegal doers from the CCTC footage but the reason best known to the respondent-State of Jharkhand that both the officers, i.e., SSP, Ranchi and the In- charge Daily Market Police Station, Ranchi had been transferred.
14.Let the Home Secretary and the DGP respond to it by filing personal affidavits showing the reason as to why such action has been taken by transferring the S.S.P., Ranchi as also the In-charge Daily Market Police Station who could have proved to be helpful in proper investigation of the matter.
15.Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 has submitted that he will also seek instruction and file affidavit.
16.Put up this case on 05.08.2022.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-