Bharat Lal Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3552 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Writ Appeal No. 422 of 2021


     Bharat Lal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Gopal Ram Chandrakar, Aged about 48
     years, R/o Ward No. - 12, Mahasamund, Police Station and District
     Mahasamund (C.G.)

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi
     Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
     (C.G.)

2.   Director General of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3.   Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

4.   Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
     (C.G.)

5.   Station   House    Officer,    Police   Station   -   Mahasamund,     District
     Mahasamund (C.G.)

6.   Union of India, Through - Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
     Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) North
     Block, New Delhi, Pin - 110001.

7.   Central Bureau of Investigation, Through Superintendent of Police,
     Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

8.   Lokesh Chandrakar, S/o Prahlad Chandrakar, aged about 29 years, R/o
     Village - Umarda, Post, Police Station and District Mahasamund (C.G.)

                                                                  ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondents No. 6 and 7 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General.

For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

08.12.2021

Heard Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for

respondents No. 1 to 5, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor

General for respondents No. 6 and 7 and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No. 8.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 16.07.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 217 of 2017.

3. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay,

which is registered as I.A. No. 1 of 2021.

4. The appeal was filed on 24.11.2019. In the application, it is stated there

is delay of 41 days. The delay is sought to be explained by stating that the

appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time because of 'bonafide

omission'.

5. The Registry, however, opines that due to extension of period of

limitation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay will be only of 9 days.

6. There is no objection to this application. I.A. No. 1 of 2021 is allowed.

7. The case of the appellant in the writ petition is that the family of the

petitioner, his parents and family of the brother of the petitioner used to reside

jointly in one house. While the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner and

his family used to live in the ground floor, his younger brother was living

alongwith his family in the first floor. The respondent No. 8, who is a cousin of

the petitioner, was also living in the first floor in a different room. A fire had

broken out on 18.03.2015 at about 11.13 pm in the house of the petitioner and

the family of the younger brother was trapped in their rooms. Though he tried

to rescue them, but because of the intensity of fire, his effort went in vain.

However, allegation is levelled that door was bolted from outside and it is

asserted that it was the respondent No. 8, who had committed cold-blooded

murder of the brother of the petitioner and his family.

8. Alleging that investigation was not done properly, the petitioner had

approached this Court praying for a direction to hand over the investigation to

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

9. In the return filed by the State, it was stated that one 'Special

Investigating Team' was constituted and the same had decided to go for a

'Narco Test' on respondent No. 8 and had moved an application before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. It was also stated that

investigation has not been completed.

10. The learned Single Judge directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

First Class, before whom the application was pending, to decide the application

within an outer limit of four weeks and the State was also directed to complete

the investigation within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of

copy of the order.

11. Mr. Pandey submits that though prayer was made for handing over the

investigation to CBI, this aspect of matter was not at all considered by the

learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated. It is

submitted that the learned Single Judge confined only to the aspect of 'Narco

Test' and therefore, appropriate directions may be issued to hand over the

investigation to CBI.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that only after the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed the order on the application of

'Narco Test' rejecting the prayer of the prosecution, the appellant had

approached this Court. They also submit that in the facts and circumstances,

when the appellant had waited for the outcome of the application filed by the

prosecution with regard to conducting of 'Narco Test' on respondent No. 8, the

appeal ought not to be entertained as it is a case of approbate and reprobate.

13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and have perused the materials on record.

14. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, more particularly,

paragraph 11, would go to show that submissions were advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant that a direction may be issued for completion

of the investigation within a time-frame. Though prayer for handing over the

investigation to CBI was made in the petition, it appears that such a prayer was

not pressed and the prayer was scaled down to directing the investigating team

to complete the investigation within a time-bound manner. It is in that context

the learned Single Judge directed investigation to be completed within an outer

limit of one year. Therefore, submission of Mr. Pandey that prayer of the

petitioner for handing over investigation of the case to CBI was not considered

is without merit.

15. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this writ appeal and

accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.

                               Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                       (Arup Kumar Goswami)                     (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                           Chief Justice                               Judge
Brijmohan