Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Editor, Nagpur Times And Ors. on 8 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(3)BOMCR57
JUDGMENT M.M. Qazi, J.
1. The present criminal writ petition has arise out of the report published in the local daily "NAGPUR TIMES" dated 12th July, 1989 under the caption "Alleged Rape on Minor Girl-Police lenient towards the accused". The report having reached the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, he directed that it should be registered as a criminal writ petition and forwarded the same to the this Court for taking appropriate action. It is in these circumstances that the present criminal writ petition has come before us, after it was admitted.
2. The news item gave the brief facts of the incident as follows :
"What made the city police and the Judiciary so lenient towards the accused persons in the recently reported and highly sensational "gang rape case" is a big question which has become the talk of the town. Top businessmen of the city have been charged with committing rape on a minor girl allegedly supplied to them from a "brothel" run from a posh residential locality here.
It may be recalled here that, a couple residing in the posh locality of Ujwal Nagar on Wardha Road here were picked up by the Sakkardhara police on July 3 last on charges of running a brothel at their premises and of supplying a minor girl for sexual satiation to the big wigs in the city. The names of the couple were given as Mrs. Rajani Deshmukh and 'her husband' Manik Deshmukh.
The couple reportedly alured a minor girl by offering her a job. After taking to a beauty parlour, the couple is said to have handed over the girl to three youths. Rs. 3000/- were charged for the deal.
The youth gang raped the minor girl at Bhandara Guest House after forcing her to consume liquor.
In the raid on the premises of the Deshmukhs, the police had recovered a personal diary of Mrs. Rajani Deshmukh that reportedly contained the addresses and telephone numbers of her 'clients'. The minor girl, after recording her statement, was sent to her parents.
An Interrogation by police of the girl revealed that a Maruti car was used to transport her to the 'clients'. The police then launched an intensive search for the three youths. However, the police could not nab them. In the meanwhile, three businessmen were rounded up on the tip given by Mrs. Rajani and confirmed by the minor girl.
The arrest were made on July 5 last. Their names as given by the police are Pravin Vijay Pandya, 40, Kisan Shobhraj Nagarajan, 28, and Rakesh Chandulal Jain, 29. All the three are said to be associated with established business houses in the Sitabuldi market.
The Ajni Police, who are investigating the case, have obtained remand for Mrs. Rajani Deshmukh and Manik Deshmukh upto July 13.
As soon as the arrests of the Deshmukhs and three businessmen came to light, two other top businessmen applied for anticipatory bail, one or them even took shelter in a hotel on Abhyankar Road here to evade police arrest. After two day's stay there, the said businessmen is now said to be hiding in Jabalpur, it is reliably learnt here.
The case took a dramatic turn leaving a reasonable scope of suspicion on the developments thereafter involving the police.
All the three accused who were arrested were charged, along with other offences, with rape, under section 376 of I.P.C. which is a very serious offence, next to murder, for its punishment may extend to life imprisonment.
The police, following their routine practice produced all the three accused before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. Kulkarni. The Court granted police custody remand to all the three upto July 11 next. The P.C.R. was granted late in the evening. Still the accused managed to move the Sessions Court for bail the same day i.e., July 6.
On July, 7, on the application by the accused persons for revision against the order of Mr. Kulkarni for granting of bail, the Assistant Public Prosecutor was given a notice so as to give reasons why the accused could not be granted bail.
Normally, it takes a minimum of 3 days to reply to the notice as the A.P.P. consults the investigating Officer, who submits a report to the Court through the A.P.P. But, here the police and the A.P.P. displayed over enthusiasm to set the matter right in favour of the accused persons immediately. The Investigating Officer did not wait, as they normally do, to reply to he notice but appeared before the Court to declare that the police no longer needed the accused in their custody.
The police, who just a day before, fought to obtain the remand and as a result succeeded in getting it upto July 11, changed its version within 15 hours to state that they had no objection if the accused were granted bail. The said case was heard in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Mr. M.G. Kasawa.
Another important aspect that draws attention is that out of the three, two were bailed out and the Court adjourned. The third accused, Rakesh Kumar Chandulal Jain was not bailed out.
The case of Rakeshkumar was heard in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Mr. A. M. Yadao.
The applicant Rakeshkumar had applied under section 439 of Cr. P. C. for bail. Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. V.G. Thakre argued that the offence is of a serious nature and submitted that the alleged incident is very sensational as a minor girl was subjected to rape and that it was a case of gang rape.
Mr. Thakre also submitted that he received the notice of the bail application at 3.30 P.M. on July 6 so he could not contact the police and call requisite information. He requested for time to submit a report and argue the case.
Another interesting point to note in the ruling of Kulkarni is that he said that the application was 'silent whether he (Rakeshkumar) is in police or Magisterial custody'. Whereas, the case was obvious enough to indicate that the accused was in police custody.
The Court further observed that while granting ball in a non-bailable offence, the Court has to consider various aspects. Further it was stated that 'it will not be proper to pass any order on this application without calling the report from the State and without seeing the case diary'. With this, the Court was adjourned till July 11 for hearing.
Following two days i.e. July 8 and 9 were public holidays.
Again a great change of circumstances took place and on the following day (Saturday) Rakeshkumar was granted bail by a special hearing at the residence of Addl. Sessions Judge Mr. A.N. Yadao.
In his order the learned Judge observed that the prosecution had given no objection to release the accused on bail. When contracted, the top police officials passed the buck on the judiciary stating that it was very common that when accused persons were produced before the Court, they often were bailed out.
When asked about the alleged involvement of some cops in 'helping ' the accused persons, the top officials pleaded ignorance.
Other police officials replied that the 'investigations are going on'.
The police have not yet succeeded in seizing the Maruti Car reportedly used in transporting the minor girl to the 'customers'.
The police even could not so far succeed in nabbing the three youths who allegedly took the girl to Bhandara.
Police is also silent on the contents of the so called personal diary seized from Rajani Deshmukh's residence as no further arrests have been made."
3. From the above facts, it is clear that after the arrest of three accused persons on 5th July, 1989, they were produced before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. Kulkarni on 6th July, 1989 for obtaining police custody remand, which was accordingly granted upto 11th July, 1989. The remand was obtained on the following grounds:
(i) that, they were to be medically examined.
(ii) that, their semen sample was to be taken.
(iii) for further interrogation.
On 7th July, 1989, two separate criminal revisions were filed by the accused Kishan Shobhraj Nagaraj and Pravin Kumar Vijay Pandya, being Criminal Revision Application Nos. 291 and 290 of 1989 respectively, challenging the order of the police custody remand passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, on 6th July, 1989. Inspite of the fact that police custody remand was granted upto 11th July, 1989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur Shri G.S. Kaswa allowed Criminal Revision Application Nos. 291 and 290 of 1989 and directed Kisan Nagaraj and Pravin Pandya to be released on furnishing P.R. bond and cash security, coupled with certain other conditions which were incorporated in the order.
4. Shri. A.V. Gupta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Nagpur Times and also the Staff Reporter Shri Irfan Iqbal Khan, has taken us through the orders passed by Shri G.S. Kaswa. He has submitted that it is a case of gang rape and hence it was not proper for the police as well as the A.P.P. to have conceded in regard to the grant to bail. According to him, the police as well as the Public Prosecutor have been guilty of dereliction of the duty since they have not opposed the grant of bail. According to him, the conducted of the police as well as of the Public Prosecutor was highly irresponsible.
5. Shri B. V. Gaikwad, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the investigating Officer Mr. Todase and Mr. Saraf, who is incharge of Ajni Police Station, has contended that the police custody remand was asked for because the accused were required to be medically examined. He has further submitted that the medical examination of the two accused was over on 7th July, 1989 and their statements were already recorded on 6th July, 1989 along with the statement of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that necessary investigation was also over and the investigating that necessary investigation was also over and the Investigating Officer was satisfied that it was no more necessary to retain the accused persons in public custody, he accordingly informed the Public Prosecutor to that effect. Public Prosecutor Mr. Ghorpade has filed his reply in answer to the notice issued by this Court and has submitted that all the necessary papers were made available to him and after having gone through the same, he was satisfied that there could not be any serious objection on behalf of the prosecution if the Court wanted to release the accused. The relevant portion of his reply in para 14 is reproduced below :
"This non-applicants has occasion to deal with this case for the first time on 7th July, 1989. His office was served with a notice in the matter of revision application filed by two accused against the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, granting police custody remand against them on 6-7-1989. After receiving that notice, this N.A. called for papers of the case by writing a letter to the investigating Officer met this N.A. at about 3-45 P.M. on 7-7-1989. This N.A. perused the case diary and the investigation done by the investigating Officer upto that stage. He has asked the concerned officer on which grounds the police custody remand was sought for and whether these grounds existed even then. He was informed by the I.O that the statements of the accused were already recorded and their medical examination etc. was already done and no further police custody remand was necessary. The Investigating Officer also told this N.A. that he could not get any information Whatsoever from the said two accused in the matter of other accused persons and conveyed that no further information was likely to be obtained from these two accused persons. He categorically stated that no further police custody remand was necessary."
In view of this position, Mr. Gaikwad vehemently argued that no fault could be found eithy with the Police Officers or with the Public Prosecutor in conceding to the grant of the bail. It is true from the facts it appears to be a gang rape case and hence the prosecution agency should have been extremely careful while conceding to the grant of bail. However, it would not be possible to say, as a general rule, that the prosecution cannot concede in a gang rape case even if ultimately it decides to do so after fully satisfying and examining all the aspects of the case, and a decision is taken strictly on merits with objectivity. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is not merely to secure conviction of a person who is brought to face a trial before the Court. He is an officer of the Court and essentially he has to assist the Court in dispensing justice. It is true that he has to protect the interest of the State to the best of his ability, but even the interest of the state cannot be anything else but to see that justice is done. In the instance case, as we have already shown above, in the investigating Officer as well as the Public Prosecutor were convinced that the police custody remand was no more necessary for the two accused. Even though the Public Prosecutor had conceded, it was open to the Additional Sessions Judge to grant or not to grant bail. As it appeared that it was case of gang rape, he could have rejected the bail application. It appears that he granted the bail essentially because the prosecution conceded. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was guilty of any error or impropriety and at any rate the order of granting bail having not been challenged before this Court by the State, it is not necessary to make any observation. Suffice it to say that the inferences drawn in the news item against the Police Officers and the Public Prosecutor Shri Ghorpade are not well founded. The notice issued against them stand discharged.
6. Coming to the case of the Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.M. Sonare, we find that his case is quite different from that of Shri Ghorpade and the Police officers. Shri Sonare appears on the scene for the first time on 8th July, 1989. Accused Rakeshkumar did not challenge the police custody remand by filling a criminal revision application before the Sessions Judge as was done by the other two accused, namely Kishan Nagaraj and Pravin Kumar Pandya. Instead he filed an application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, Shri A.N. Yadao, on 6-7-1989, being Criminal Application No. 1611 of 1989. On 7-7-1989 Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Thakre appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge. It appears from the order that he opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the offence was of serious nature and the incident was very sensational since the minor girl was subjected to rape by several persons. He also contended before the Additional Sessions Judge that he could not contact the investigating Officer and therefore the requested the Additional Sessional Judge to adjourn the case, which was accordingly adjourned to 11-7-1989, as stated above. Ordinarily in view of this order which was passed after hearing both the sides, accused Rakeshkumar should have waited till 11-7-1989. However, his counsel filed an application on 8-7-1989, i.e. on the next day itself, and that too on a holiday for taking the case, being Misc. Criminal Application No. 1611 of 1989. Along with the application additional submission were also filed. It was presented before the Judge at his residence on 8-7-1989.
The learned Judge made an endorsement thereon to the following effect:
"P.P. to say.
Sd/-A.N. Yadao A.S.J. 8-7-89."
This application was taken by the defence Counsel to Shri S.M. Sonare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for his say. Shri Sonare gave his say as follows:
"Received copy to-day at my residence along with copy of order of Shri Kaswa, Additional Sessions Judge. Say of the I/O is recorded in the order of Shri Kaswa, A.S.J. If I/O is required he may be called. Subject to this no objection."
Sd /-S. M. Sonare, A.P.P. 1.25 A.M. 8-7-1989."
The application was then again filed by the defence Counsel before the Additional Sessions Judge with the say of Shri Sonare. In view of the endorsement made by Shri Sonare, A.P.P., the Additional Sessions Judge released accused Rakeshkumar on bail.
7. Mr. Gupta vehemently contended that Shri Sonare gave concession in such a serious case even without acquainting himself with the true state of affairs. It appears from the order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.N. Yadao that he essentially granted bail to the accused Rakeshkumar because the Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Sonare gave no objection.
8. Mr. Ahmed, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Shri Sonare, submitted that the Additional Session Judge Shri Kaswa had already released the two accused on bail and, therefore, no fault could be found with Shri Sonare who gave his no objection for the release of the third accused it is difficult to appreciate this argument. In a criminal case the role played by each accused may be quite different and, therefore, simply because one or two accused are released on bail, that by itself cannot be a ground for the release of the third accused. The only documents that were made available to Shri Sonare at his residence on 8-7-1989 were the copy of the additional submissions prepared by the defence Counsel and the order passed by Shri Kaswa on 7-7-1989 granting bail to the other two accused on the concession given out by the prosecution. He was not aware of the facts in regard to the third accused since he had no occasion to discuss the matter with the Investigating Officer. He had also not seen the case diary. He had not even seen the order passed by Shri Yadao a day before . In view of these facts, a senior and experienced in such a ugly haste. When this case was already adjourned by the Court to 11th July, 1989, it is not understood as to why Mr. sonare was in such a great hurry on a holiday to give his consent in such a serious and sensational matter without practically knowing anything about the case. It is also not understood as to why Mr. Sonare to personally appear before the Judge at his residence along with the defence Counsel.
9. The main defence of Mr. Sonare seems to be that he could not disbelieve the words of the defence Counsel. It is difficult to appreciate what he really meant thereby. The defence Counsel was interested in getting bail for his client. The functions of the defence Counsel and the Public Prosecutor are different and distinct. The defence Counsel has to subserve the Interest of his client. In our view, it was essential for the Public Prosecutor to have acquainted himself of the facts independently through an impartial machinery of the Investigating Officer. Another limb of his defence seems to be that since Mr. Ghorpade, Public Prosecutor, had given no objection for the release of other two accused before Shri Kaswa, he thought nothing wrong in agreeing for the release of the third accused as well. We have already observed above that it is not necessary that the part played by each accused should be identical particularly when the evidence is yet to come.
10. Mr. Ahmed further contended that if the facts of this case are minutely examined it may not disclose any serious offence particularly in regard to the third accused, who was only a customer. Mr. Gaikwad appearing on behalf of the Police Officers had rightly contended that since the matter is sub judice it would not be proper for us to examine the case on merits. He maintains that the offence allegedly committed by all the accused is one of rape and that the charge-sheet to that effect has already been filed. In our view, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Ahmed. We are really concerned with the state of affairs as existed on 8-7-1989 when Shri Sonare gave his no objection without having the relevant papers before him. We have also not appreciated as to what Shri Sonare really ment by writing as follows :
"If I.O. is required, he may be called."
This endorsement, in our view, is improper. Public Prosecutor is the officer of the Court and he is expected to protect the interest of the State to the best of his ability. He is also supposed to assist the Court in dispensing justice. The minimum which is expected of the Public Prosecutor is to satisfy himself after going through the relevant record that there could be no objection. He cannot throw the entire burden on the Court by saying "If Investigating Officer is required, he may be called." Having regard to all these facts, we are constrained to observe that Shri Sonare has acted in highly irresponsible and improper manner unbefitting to the office he holds. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Law Secretary and the Law Minister.