Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Sonker vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2020
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
PRINCIPAL BENCH AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.43886/2020
Jabalpur, Dictated on Board: 27/11/2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Akbar Usmani and Mr. Sunil Pandey, Ld. counsel for the
Applicant.
Mr. R.K.Verma, Ld. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Mr.
Manish Kholia, Ld. PL for the State.
Mr. J.K.Jain, Ld. Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of
India.
By an elaborate order dated 11/11/2020, this Court,
while granting bail to the Applicant who was allegedly
apprehended with 10 kgs of Ganja, had also required a
response from the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur with
regard to the facts and circumstances behind the arrest of
the Applicant and the case registered against him.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was
apprehended and sent to judicial custody on 27/07/2020.
The prosecution's case is that upon a source information,
the Applicant was intercepted and arrested on 27/07/2020
at 6:45 PM and ten kilograms of Ganja was seized from him.
The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the
Applicant has been framed by the police and his arrest and
incarceration was a brazen act of illegal detention, violating
the fundamental right of the Applicant under Article 21 of
2
the Constitution of India. The Applicant was allegedly taken
by the police on the morning of 26/07/2020 and kept
overnight at police station Belbagh and even after the
passage of 24 hours, was not produced before the
Magistrate. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated under the
NDPS Act.
3. To substantiate his contention, Ld. Counsel for the
Applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the page
17 of the application, which is the copy of a representation
made by the sister of the Applicant to the Superintendent
of Police, Jabalpur. The said application was received by
the S.P. Office on 27/07/2020 at the reception and was
marked as 5532. Thereafter, there is another seal on top of
the said application/representation, which apparently has
been stamped, after the representation was taken up as
complaint No. 3183 on 29/07/2020. The seal which is on
the bottom of the complaint apparently seems to be that of
the inward section/reception which received the
representation.
4. After the S.P. Office was convinced that the complaint
required further inquiry, it was marked as a complaint and
given the number 3183 on 29/07/2020. In the complaint
to the S.P., the sister of the Applicant has stated that on
26/07/2020, the personnel of Police Station Belbagh came
to her house and took her brother, the Applicant herein,
and another person by the name of Munna Sonkar for the
3
purposes of questioning. She further states that on the way,
a friend of the Applicant by the name of Shubham
Mahobiya was also picked up by the police. Upon being
asked by the family member of the Applicant, the police
assured them that the Applicant would be released after
inquiry. However, the complaint further discloses, that the
Applicant and his friend were not released on 27/07/2020.
In paragraph 2 of the complaint, the complainant says that
while being taken from home, no drugs was ever seized from
the Applicant and that notwithstanding, the Police
informed her that a case under NDPS would be registered
against the Applicant and he would be sent to Jail. Finally,
she states that no contraband has been seized from the
Applicant or his friend and that they have been detained in
the Police Station for more than 24 hours and requested
the Superintendent of Police, to direct the personnel of P.S.
Belbagh, Jabalpur to release her brother and his friend
Shubham Mahobiya.
5. The complaint does not reflect the time at which the S.P.
Office received the complaint. It only gives the date.
However, another significant activity took place on
27/07/2020. An application under section 97 of Cr.P.C.
(search for persons wrongfully confined) was addressed to
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur
on 27/07/2020. The application came up for hearing in the
Court of JMFC, Jabalpur on 29/07/2020. The Ld. JMFC,
4
Jabalpur directed that the case diary be called for from
Police Station Belbagh and listed the case for the very next
date i.e., on 30/07/2020.
6. On page 18 of the application is Annexure A/13 which is a
copy of the acknowledgement slip issued by the filing
section of the District Court at Jabalpur, relating to the
filing of the application under section 97 of Cr.P.C before
the District Court, Jabalpur. The computer-generated date
of filing is shown in the slip as 27/07/2020 and the time of
filing is given as 13:30:51 i.e., fifty-one seconds past 1:30
PM.
7. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the Applicant has drawn the
attention of this Court to the order passed by the Ld. JMFC,
Jabalpur on 30/07/2020. It would be necessary to
reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed by the
Ld. JMFC, Jabalpur which reads **mDr ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ls
fnukad 27-07-2020 dks 18%45 cts ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl [kVhd eksgYyk esa
vfHk;qDr ds vkf/kiR; ls iz'uxr xkatk tIr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ fnukad
27-07-2020 dks 19%15 cts mls ekSds ls gh fxjQrkj fd;k x;kA tIrh ls
iwoZ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk ,u-Mh-ih-,l vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj fnukad 27-
07-2020 dks 14%15 cts ls dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS ,oa izFke dk;Zokgh eq[kohj
lwpuk dk iapukek fnukad 27-07-2020 dks 14%15 cts cuk;k x;k gS ftldh
lwpuk uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd vkserh laHkkx dks Hkh nh xbZA bl izdkj
vkosnd@vfHk;qDr ds lanHkZ esa Fkkuk csyckx }kjk mDr ekeys esa mDrvuqlkj
dk;Zokgh dh xbZA**
5
8. The date and time revealed in the order is of great
significance. The offending Ganja is alleged to have been
seized from the Applicant on 27/07/2020 at 6:45 PM. His
arrest has been shown at 7:15 PM on 27/07/2020. The
preliminary preparation done by the police before the
contraband was seized from the Applicant commenced on
27/07/2020 with the Panchnama of the source information
being prepared at 2:15 PM on 27/07/2020.
9. However, the application under section 97 of Cr.P.C was
filed before the District Court on 27/07/2020 at fifty-one
seconds past 1:30 PM and in that application, it has
categorically been alleged that the Applicant was lifted by
the police on 26/07/2020 at 9:00 AM. In other words, the
application seeking the release of the Applicant from
unlawful custody of the police was filed in the District
Court, forty-five minutes before the alleged source
information was received by the police against the
Applicant allegedly being in possession of 10 Kgs of Ganja.
10. The flow of events and the chronology, prima facie reflects
that the allegations levelled against the police in the
application u/s. 97 Cr.P.C is true as the filing of the
application before the District Court at Jabalpur, precedes
the reception of the alleged source information against the
Applicant, which prima facie reveals that the Applicant was
already in the custody of the police and that the FIR against
6
him was prepared while the Applicant was in police
custody.
11. Today, the Ld. Additional Advocate General has appeared
on behalf of the State. He has drawn the attention of this
Court to the action taken report filed by the Superintendent
of Police Jabalpur, in compliance of the order of this Court
dated 11/11/2020.
12. In the action taken report, the SP Jabalpur has averred in
paragraph 3 that the menace of the cases under the NDPS
is increasing on a day-to-day basis and the same is posing
a challenge to the law enforcement agency. Thereafter, he
goes on to state "The act of possession of Contraband,
unlike the other offences like production and
manufacture of contraband, are difficult to establish.
The prevailing laws and provisions related to the
subject has to strike a balance, safeguarding the
interest of any person illegally implicated in such
offence. The habitual offenders knowing the nitty-
gritty of the subject are devising new methods to evade
themselves from the offence, even in the eventuality of
getting caught by the law enforcing agencies".
According to the police, the Applicant Shubham Sonkar
was aware that he was dealing with 10 kgs Ganja, which is
greater than small quantity and therefore to pre-empt a
case against him, prepared and filed an application under
7
section 97 of the Cr.P.C with false allegation of being kept
in illegal custody.
13. In paragraph 5 of the action taken report, it is averred that
the Applicant is a habitual offender and besides other
cases, has been arrested four different cases under the
NDPS Act only. These four cases are alleged to have been
committed during the period from 2011 to 2020. In support
of their contention, Document-A has been filed, which is a
chart showing the antecedents of the Applicant. The cases
under the NDPS Act for which the Applicant has been
booked are of the years 2011, 2012, 2016 and 2020. The
other two offences are of the year 2013, for provisions under
the IPC and one case of the year 2016, under the Gambling
Act.
14. The Ld. Additional Advocate General has submitted that the
Applicant is a recidivist and extremely resourceful in
creating evidence to aid his defence, even before committing
the offence itself. Further, the report avers that the
application/representation, filed by the sister of the
Applicant alleging that he was lifted from his residence on
26/07/2020, was filed at the SP Office on 27/07/2020 and
could only reach the desk of the Superintendent of Police
on 29/07/2020. Upon receipt of the representation, the SP
is stated to have directed the CSP Gorakhpur to enquire
into the matter who, on the basis of the statement of the
brother of the Applicant, filed a report, which the SP found
8
to be vague and not acceptable. Therefore, by order dated
12/10/2020, the Additional Superintendent of Police, City
South, has been assigned to conduct the enquiry afresh
and complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.
15. In paragraph 8(a) on page 4 of the report, the SP Jabalpur
has stated that it is highly improbable that the sister being
aggrieved by the illegal custody of the Applicant would
approach the office of the SP but choose to submit the
representation at the reception office and not make an
attempt to meet any of the senior officers present at the SP
office. He further says that the nature of the complaint
demanded immediate attention by the competent authority,
but the representation was sought to be submitted at the
reception, where letters of all kinds are received. According
to the SP, if the sister of the Applicant was truly aggrieved
by the impending arrest of the Applicant or of the Applicant
having been lifted from his residence on 26/07/2020, the
Applicant would have tried to personally meet the
"competent authority" to get immediate orders for the
redressal of his grievance. It further states that apart from
the SP, in the premises of the office of the SP Jabalpur, six
other officers are also present out of which four are of the
rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and two of the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the sister
of the Applicant made no endeavour to meet any of these
authorities. In other words, the report suggests that the
9
factum of filing the representation at the SP Office should
be viewed as a defensive and pre-emptory measure,
planned by the Applicant and that is why it was only
delivered at the reception without making an effort to meet
any of the senior officers. In paragraph 8, it is desired that
no adverse inference may be drawn by this Court with
regard to the conduct of the Police and instead, let the Trial
Court decide the involvement of the Applicant in the said
offence.
16. The Ld. Additional Advocate general has submitted that
the charge sheet has been filed against the Applicant. The
Ld. Additional Advocate General has also stated that the
error if any, is not malafide. He has further stated that the
pressure on the Police is excessive on account of shortage
of manpower and the pressing nature of Police duties. He
has further stated that the Police Department is the only
department in the State where the officer and the jawans
are on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week
and three hundred and sixty-five days a year. He added
that their duties range from high stress work like providing
security for VIP/VVIPs, maintaining law and order and
investigation of offence. He has further requested this
Court to take cognizance of the fact that as there is no
separation between investigation and the law and order, the
same policemen perform the duty of maintaining law and
order in the city and also investigating offences which have
10
been made over to them, while ensuring that VIP/VVIPs in
the State are accorded adequate security.
17. This Court is in complete agreement with this particular
facet of police work that the Ld. Additional Advocate
General has alluded to. Undoubtedly if there is one
department in the State, which is stressed to its limits on
account of shortage of manpower and the stress of duty, it
is the Police Department. It should also be stated in their
favour that despite such stress, they discharge their duties
honourably most of the time while doing a thankless job.
18. The Ld. Additional Advocate General has also submitted
that the Police be permitted to complete its
investigation/enquiry into the complaint of unlawful
custody and fabrication of evidence as the same is now
being looked into by an officer of the rank of Addition SP
and, therefore, no orders be passed which may directly or
indirectly affect the morale of the Police.
19. The Ld. Additional Advocate General has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the judgment passed by a three
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sujatha Ravikiran
Vs. State of Kerala and others (2016) 7 SCC 597 where,
the case was sought to be transferred to the Central Bureau
of Investigation and an alternate relief was also made for
investigation by the State Police by constituting a Special
Investigating Team (SIT). The Ld. Additional Advocate
11
General argued that in Sujata Ravikiran's case also a CBI
investigation was sought but the Supreme Court instead of
transferring the case to the CBI, directed the State of Kerala
to constitute a special team of police officers headed by an
officer, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General to
investigate the matter. The said judgment would not have
a direct bearing on the facts of the case for the following
reasons.
20. In Sujatha Ravikiran's case, the facts were that the
respondent Lt. Ravi Kiran Kabdaula was posted at Kochi in
Kerala and on account of a marital discord, the wife, Sujatha Ravi Kiran gave a complaint against her husband and five naval officers alleging inter alia, physical and mental cruelty and sexual abuse. On her complaint, the FIR was registered. In that case, the complainant had also made serious allegations referring wife-swapping and also implicated several persons by name. The complainant had alleged that accused naval officers are influential people and apprehended that the State Police may not carry out a fair investigation and so prayed for a direction to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into the case. The Ld. Additional Advocate General specifically referred to paragraph 9 of the said judgment on a reading of which, he has submitted that transferring the case to the CBI should be an exception, sparingly exercised only in those cases where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil 12 confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramification or, where an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. Otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process, lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
21. The facts in this particular case disclose that here is a case of the police investigating the police itself. The allegations are not being levelled against a third person or someone else who is another citizen, but against the guardians of law itself, who are stated to have exceeded their brief and violated the civil liberties of the Applicant, gravely infracting his fundamental right under Article 21 itself. The other reasons why this Court feels that the investigation into the allegations levelled by the Applicant of extra judicial methods adopted by the police and illegal arrest and detention are as follows.
22. In paragraph 4 of the report of the SP, Jabalpur, the SP has averred "the Applicant being aware that he is dealing with 10 Kg quantity of Ganja which is greater than the small quantity, prepared and filed an application under section 97 of the Cr.P.C with false allegation of being kept in illegal custody. It is submitted that the false application under section 97 of Cr.P.C was proceeded 13 but facts could not reach into logical conclusion as the application was not decided on merit by the Court of JMFC".
23. Thereafter in paragraph 6 of the report the SP while holding the report given by the CSP Gorakhpur as vague and not acceptable, has averred "the said report of CSP however, being vague have not been accepted by the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur and, therefore, by order dated 12.10.2020 the Additional Superintendent of Police City South has been assigned to conduct the enquiry afresh and recently the Superintendent of Police Jabalpur has directed to complete the enquiry in the light of the order dated 20.10.2020 as expeditiously as possible".
24. In paragraph 7 of the report the SP avers "the answering respondent however is not presently in possession of any electronic, documentary or oral evidence, to falsify the claim made by the brother of the Applicant. In such circumstance the answering respondent prays from this Hon'ble Court that as the same allegations of the Applicant will be the ground of defence of the Applicant in trial, let the Court of Special Judge NDPS, proceed and complete the trial".
25. In paragraph 8 it is averred " it is further submitted that as the answering respondent is not presently in a 14 position to place evidence to dislodge the false allegations of the Applicant but he prays to the Hon'ble Court that let a reasonable inference may be drawn taking into consideration the following aspect and the attending circumstances".
26. In paragraph 8 (a), the SP while referring to the complainant not having made any attempt to meet the other officers in the SP Office has averred "this leads to the conclusion that such a complaint was made to project only the timely register of complaint. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court may kindly weigh this fact that a true aggrieved must have tried to personally meet the competent authority to get some immediate orders for the redressal of his grievance."
27. The extract no.1 from the reply/report of the SP Jabalpur reveals that the SP has already formed an opinion that the application filed on behalf of the Applicant through his relations under section 97 Cr.P.C before the Ld. Court below, contained a false allegation of being kept in illegal custody. As the statement betrays a presumption by the SP Jabalpur that the application under section 97 Cr.P.C falsely alleges that the Applicant was kept in illegal custody, raises a doubt as to what further investigation would be done by the local police and if at all it is done, how fair would it be.
15
28. Extract no.2 reveals that the report of the CSP Gorakhpur on the complaint of the sister of the Applicant, was rejected by the Superintendent of Police as vague and thereafter he passed an order on 12/10/2020 assigning the task of conducting the enquiry afresh to the Additional Superintendent of Police. The complaint was undisputedly filed on 27/09/2020 at the SP Office. Thereafter it was placed on the desk of the SP two days after that, on 29/07/2020. On 29/07/2020 itself the order was passed by the SP Jabalpur directing the CSP Gorakhpur to carry out an investigation into the allegations levelled by the complainant relating to the illegal detention of her brother. The report of the CSP Gorakhpur was sent to the SP Office on 15/09/2020. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police takes nearly thirty days to reject the said report and pass a fresh order dated 12/10/2020 directing the Additional Superintendent of Police, City South, to carry out a fresh enquiry into the complaint of the Applicant's brother. This, prima facie reveals a casual approach on the part of the SP Office of pondering over the report of the CSP for almost thirty days before passing orders to enquire afresh into the case of illegal detention. In such a situation, sincerity on the part of the local police to carry out an expeditious and fair inquiry/investigation into a case which prima facie appears to be one of violation of civil rights, is highly improbable.
16
29. Thereafter, in extract no.3 it is averred that the Police is presently not in possession of electronic, documentary or oral evidence to falsify the claim made by the sister of the Applicant. This statement damns the police. It clearly goes to show that the investigation/enquiry if any, which is proposed to be made is not for the purpose of unearthing the truth but to unearth evidence by which the Police wants to falsify the allegations in the complaint. Thus, it is clear that the Police has already formed a presumption, that the complaint is incorrect and false and it is attempting to seek evidence to prove the same. Such an investigation would be a sham. Investigation is an fact-finding activity that commences without any conclusions and per-suppositions and gathers evidence on the basis of which it constructs what the probable truth could be. An investigation which commences with a conclusion and looks for evidence and contorted reasonings to support that conclusion, is a sham, as is revealed in the present case from the report of the SP.
30. In extract no.4, the SP Jabalpur states yet again that he is not presently in a position to place evidence to dislodge the false allegation of the Applicant and further prays to this Court that a reasonable inference may be drawn taking into consideration the following aspects and attending circumstances. Here once again where the status report of the investigation itself shows that the mindset of the Police is to proceed with the investigation, not to 17 unearth truth but to establish the falsity of the complaint. There is no scope for objectivity.
31. The extract no.5 again shows the bias or prejudice with which the Police is proceeding to enquire into the complaint filed by the brother of the Applicant by stating that the complaint was only registered with an intention of creating a defence.
32. The Ld. Additional Advocate General has strenuously urged this Court not to grant any protection to the Applicant, a confirmed recidivist according to the state, a person with a dubious past and someone who repeatedly indulges in offences under the NDPS. It is also stated that the entire scenario of the alleged illegal custody in detention of the Applicant has been stage-managed by the Applicant and that this court proceed with the utmost caution while dealing with such individuals. He has further stated that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction or extraordinary powers by this court in according protection to an individual like the Applicant would have the effect of demoralising the police and bolstering the confidence of such criminal elements in society, who would continue with their criminal activities with impunity under the impression that they have the protection of the courts.
33. With the highest regard to the Ld. Additional Advocate General, the contention put forth is speculative that the 18 Applicant is a recidivist. Even if he is, he can only be proceeded against in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedures that are put in place to protect the civil liberties of citizens cannot be given short shrift to merely because the person who was sought to be apprehended is a recidivist. The Constitution accords equal protection to all its citizens and Article 21 reminds the courts that no one can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Till such time that a person is tried and found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, the presumption is always of innocence.
34. The police continue to remain under the yoke of the political executive. If the courts do not interfere in cases where the civil liberties of an individual have been violated only on the grounds that the person is a recidivist and a nuisance to the society, then the same method can be adopted by the police to violate the civil liberties of any citizen under the instruction of the political executive. Such persons may be ordinary citizens or political rivals of the dispensation of the day, who can also suffer the same fate as that of the Applicant herein only because they don't happen to find favour of the political dispensation of the day.
35. Another question that comes to the mind of this court is that the Applicant has not prayed for a fair investigation into his case or that the case be handed over to the Central 19 Bureau of Investigation. Also, the order that the court proposes to pass are not sought in a petition under Article 226 or 482 Cr.P.C, but in a bail application. Under the circumstances, would this court be acting as a knight errant or a sentinel on the qui vive if, suo motu this court decides to hand over the investigation relating to the allegations levelled against the police by the Applicant, to the CBI?
36. The Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra1 emphasised on the importance of human liberty and the role of the courts in upholding it. While observing that human liberty is a precious constitutional value, the Supreme Court elaborated and reiterated the power of the High Court under section 482 CRPC. While holding that the power inherent in the High Court must be exercised with circumspection and a sense of restraint and that the power must never be used to stifle a genuine investigation by the police, it was equally important for the High Courts to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 for preventing the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice as a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Supreme Court further held that the inherent power must be exercised to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. It underscored the need to ensure fair investigation of the offence while being equally 1 Criminal Appeal No. 742/2020 - Judgement dated 27/11/2020 20 alive to the reality of the misuse of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court further emphasised that the criminal justice system should not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens and that the courts should be aware that while, the proper enforcement of criminal law is essential for enforcing the right of the victim and assuaging the society by punishing the guilty, it was equally important for it to ensure that the criminal justice administration does not become a tool for targeted harassment.
37. Fewer the fetters, wider the interpretation and stricter the enforcement of Article 21, more prominent is the reign of the rule of law and the preservation of liberty. The spirit embodied in Article 21 is not of recent origins. Most certainly, it is not the benign thoughts of modern-day philosophers and jurists instead, its origins can be traced to the confrontation between the Barons and King John at Runnymede which culminated in the Magna Carta of 1215. Clause 39 and 40 laid the foundation for the protection of the most natural aspiration of man, freedom and liberty. Clauses 39 and 40 are as follows; "39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the 21 land" and "40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"2. The impact of these clauses was such that it prompted Baron Bingham of Cornhill to observe "These are words which should be inscribed on the stationary of the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, in place of the rather vapid slogans which their letters now carry"3. The protection of the freedom to life and liberty is not the exclusive domain of the Judiciary. The Executive and the Legislature ought to feel themselves bound to conduct their functions in a manner that does not infract the queen of all rights.
38. Whenever it comes to the notice of the Constitution Courts that the right protected by Article 21 has been violated, the Court does not have to wait for the invocation of its plenary powers under article 226 or its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, by way of a formal petition. Where such violation becomes apparent, it is not just within the right of the Court to exercise its plenary/inherent powers, but a duty to do so. The power under section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inheres in the court, to be invoked by it in a fit case, justifiable by reasons to be given, without waiting for the fulfilment of formalities. In this case, the reason for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C has been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs. To allow the local 2 extracted from "The Rule of Law" by Tom Bingham 3 The Rule of Law by Tom Bingham - Chapter 2.
22
police to inquire into the allegations levelled by the sister of the Applicant in her complaint to the police would only result in an attempt to coverup the probable misdeeds of the police personnel of P.S. Belbagh.
39. Thus, this Court is satisfied that though the Applicant has not prayed for an inquiry by the CBI into the actions of the local police, as this Court is prima facie satisfied that there exists strong circumstance suggesting the violation of the civil liberties of the Applicant by the local police and as observed hereinabove, the local police has lost its objectivity and cannot fairly investigate into the allegations levelled against the local police, this Court would fail in its duty if necessary orders are not passed by it to enquire into the conduct of the local police which would only embolden it further to resort to extra judicial methods in the name of investigation, again and again.
40. On the basis of what has been discussed and referred to hereinabove in detail and after having gone through the report of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the Police in this case cannot investigate fairly or without prejudice into the allegations against its own officers. Therefore, the Assistant Solicitor General is requested to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a PE in this case and if it is of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out against identifiable police personnel, an FIR be registered 23 against them and they be proceeded against in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations which have been made in this order shall not prejudice the Trial Court in the conduct of the case before it and the same shall be proceeded strictly in accordance with law. With the above this application is finally disposed of. A copy of this order be given to the office of the Advocate General and to Mr. J.K. Jain, Ld. Assistant Solicitor General.
Signed on: 02/12/2020 (Atul Sreedharan)
Judge
ss
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH
SOLANKI
Date: 2020.12.02 13:35:07 +05'30'
Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8