Jharkhand High Court

Prashant Pradhan @ Prashant Kumar ... vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 10 June, 2022

                                         1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(Cr) No. 171 of 2022
                                     ------

Prashant Pradhan @ Prashant Kumar Pradhan.... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home, Jharkhand, Ranchi

2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. The Inspector General of Polcie, North Chotanagpur Division, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribag

5. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag.

6. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag

7. The Officer-in Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Hazaribag

8. The Officer-in-Charge, Korra Police Station, Hazaribag

9. The Union of India through the C.B.I.

..... ......... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent-C.B.I. : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate ............

02/10.06.2022 : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner assisted by Mr. Bharat Kumar, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel

for the respondent-State and Mr. Parth Jalan, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. This writ petition has been filed for direction upon the

respondents to get the Korrah P.S. Case No. 158 of 2021 registered under

sections 25(1-A)/26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned

A.C.J.M., Hazaribag investigated by the C.B.I./C.I.D. or any other

independent agency, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Hazaribag.

3. The First Information Report has been lodged on the self

statement of S.I. Bajrang Mahto alleging therein that at about 14.45 P.M.

during crime checking at P.S. Gate they signaled a Fortuner car to stop but

the driver tried to alight from car and run away and he was stopped. On

getting suspicious, they tried to find independent witnesses, but due to

notoriety of Prashant Pradhan none came forward. Further it is alleged that

when enquired he disclosed his name as Prashant Pradhan. It is further

alleged that one 9 MM country made pistol full with 8 cartridges were found

from his full pant and Rs. 14,200/- from his shirt's pocket. A country made

revolver and huge quantity of cartridges were kept in the dishboard from the

bag kept in the dishboard of the vehicle.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submits that investigation has not been done in case in hand in right

direction. He further submits that the police has wrongly shown firearms in

possession of the petitioner. He further submits that although police has

shown 21 criminal cases against the petitioner but all these cases are falsely

lodged against the petitioner. He further submits that no independent

witness has come forward to sign the seizure list. He further submits that in

the light of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. the Court may direct to transfer the

investigation to another agency. He referred to judgment in the case of

"Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat & Others" reported in

(2010) 2 SCC 200 wherein para 35 the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:-

"35. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India4 from which it also appears that although the charge- sheet was filed in that case, this Court directed CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offence so committed. Similar is the question raised in Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab5 in which case also the investigation was handed over to the CBI Authorities after the charge-sheet was submitted in the court. While making such order, this Court observed: (Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. case, SCC pp. 623-24, paras 8-9) "8. ... The High Court was wholly unjustified in closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court became wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed to perform the duty entrusted to it under the Constitution. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the least the High Court could have done in this case was to have directed an independent investigation/enquiry into the mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family.

9. We are conscious that the investigation having been completed by the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court, ordinarily, to reopen the investigation. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to do complete justice in the matter and to instil confidence in the public mind it is necessary, in our view, to have fresh investigation in this case through a specialised agency like the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI)."

(emphasis supplied)"

5. Per contra, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-

State submits that chargesheet has already been submitted in the court and

now the trial court is competent to look into the allegation made against the

petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was caught red handed by

the police in Fortuner Car and illegal firearms has been recovered from the

possession of the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner is veteran

criminal having 21 criminal case that is why none of the independent

witnesses have come forward to sign the seizure list and only police officials

have signed the seizure list. He submits that sanction has been obtained by

the competent authority.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the

power of this Court for sending the matter for investigation to an

independent agency. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that

there are parameters of sending the matter for investigation by an

independent agency. He relied on judgment in the case of " K.V. Rajendran

Vs. Superintendent of Police CBCID, Chennai & Others" reported in

(2013)12 SCC 480 wherein para 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:-

"13. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and complete investigation", and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. Where the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the court, where the charge-sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances, should the court make any expression of its opinion on merit relating to any accusation against any individual. (Vide Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P., Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab, Vineet Narain v. Union of India, Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, Disha v. State of Gujarat, Rajender Singh Pathania v. State

(NCT of Delhi) and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.)

14. In Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat11 this Court dealt with a case where the accusation had been against high officials of the Police Department of the State of Gujarat in respect of killing of persons in a fake encounter and Gujarat Police after the conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet before the competent criminal court. The Court came to the conclusion that as the allegations of committing murder under the garb of an encounter are not against any third party but against the top police personnel of the State of Gujarat, the investigation concluded by the State investigating agency may not be satisfactorily held. Thus, in order to do justice and instil confidence in the minds of the victims as well of the public, the State police authority could not be allowed to continue with the investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against top officials. Thus, the Court held that even if a charge-sheet has been filed by the State investigating agency there is no prohibition for transferring the investigation to any other independent investigating agency.

15. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights a Constitution Bench of this Court has clarified that extraordinary power to transfer the investigation from State investigating agency to any other investigating agency must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. (See also Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan.)

16. This Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. held: (SCC p. 416, para 31) "31. ... this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them."

(emphasis supplied)

17. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the Court could exercise its constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased."

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties the Court has gone through the materials on record. There is serious

allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner is facing 21 criminal cases

prior to this case. Chargesheet has already been submitted. What are the

point with regard to seizure list as submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is subject matter of the trial. There is no doubt that the Court can

exercise its Constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the

State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency

like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials of

the State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top

officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them to influence the

investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil