Awadhesh Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Order dated 29.11.2019 reads as under:

 “The proceeding in this anticipatory bail application would reveal that series of orders have been passed, however, on a pointed query

what strategy has been adopted by the department for completion of investigation which are pending for more than five years, Mr. Shekhar

Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks adjournment for seeking further instruction in the matter.

Several orders have been passed and voluminous records have been produced, but the Court's query has remained unanswered. Even the

number of cases which are pending for 10 years and more has not been disclosed.

The issue flagged in this application is of great public importance. Prima-facie, I am of the opinion that the matter should be treated as a

Public Interest Litigation.

Post this matter on 20.12.2019. On that day the learned Public Prosecutor shall address the Court why this matter should not be treated as

Public Interest Litigation and posted before the appropriate Bench.â€​

Story of this case begins with order dated 28.09.2018, which reads as under:

“Case Diary has been received which is handed over to Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP.

Mr. P.C. Tripathi, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved in this case which was taken to the Arbitral

Tribunal in which the State has lost its battle finally when S.L.P.(C) No.22129 of 2009 was dismissed on 30.08.2010, yet investigation in this

case has been kept pending.

Responding to a pointed query of the Court, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP informs the Court that charge-sheet has yet not been filed

in this case. The learned APP states that it does not appear from the case-diary that the investigation in the case was stayed by an order of

the Court.

If investigation in Raj Nagar P.S.Case No.33 of 2000 is still continuing and in the last 18 years the State police has failed to conclude

investigation in this case, it would not only be in breach of the statutory mandate it is a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. The matter may assume dimensions of public importance.

Issue notice to the Secretary, Home, Jail & Disaster Management and the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand, who shall file their

respective affidavits giving details of the general directions issued for speedy conclusion of the investigation of the cases in which the

investigation has spilled over more than three years, but charge-sheet not filed. Separate details of such instructions/directions, if any,

issued in the last one year and bare dates of monitoring meetings, if any held, shall also be indicated.

In the above facts, interim order dated 24.08.2018 shall continue till the final disposal of this anticipatory bail application.

Post the matter on 26.10.2018.

Let a copy of the order be given to the learned APP.â€​

Thereafter, further opportunity was granted to the opposite parties for filing affidavit, however, when it was found that inspite of opportunities

granted the Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand has not filed his affidavit cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed

upon him. It appears that the order dated 02.11.2018 by which cost was imposed upon him made him aware of his responsibilities. He filed an

application vide I.A. No.10384 of 2018 which was allowed having found his explanation satisfactory. Thereafter, on 09.08.2019, the following order

was passed by this Court:

“The issues which pertain to investigation and administration of criminal justice were noticed by this Court about one year back.

On 28.09.2018, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Case Diary has been received which is handed over to Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP.

Mr. P.C. Tripathi, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved in this case which was taken to the Arbitral

Tribunal in which the State has lost its battle finally when S.L.P.(C) No.22129 of 2009 was dismissed on 30.08.2010, yet investigation in this

case has been kept pending.

Responding to a pointed query of the Court, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP informs the Court that charge-sheet has yet not been filed

in this case. The learned APP states that it does not appear from the case-diary that the investigation in the case was stayed by an order of

the Court.

If investigation in Raj Nagar P.S.Case No.33 of 2000 is still continuing and in the last 18 years the State police has failed to conclude

investigation in this case, it would not only be in breach of the statutory mandate it is a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. The matter may assume dimensions of public importance.

Issue notice to the Secretary, Home, Jail & Disaster Management and the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand, who shall file their

respective affidavits giving details of the general directions issued for speedy conclusion of the investigation of the cases in which the

investigation has spilled over more than three years, but charge-sheet not filed. Separate details of such instructions/directions, if any,

issued in the last one year and bare dates of monitoring meetings, if any held, shall also be indicated.

In the above facts, interim order dated 24.08.2018 shall continue till the final disposal of this anticipatory bail application.

Post the matter on 26.10.2018.

Let a copy of the order be given to the learned APP.â€​

On 02.11.2018, the following order was passed by this Court:

“On 28.09.2018 the following order was passed by the Court:

“Case Diary has been received which is handed over to Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP.

Mr. P.C. Tripathi, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved in this case which was taken to the Arbitral

Tribunal in which the State has lost its battle finally when S.L.P.(C) No.22129 of 2009 was dismissed on 30.08.2010, yet investigation in this

case has been kept pending.

Responding to a pointed query of the Court, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP informs the Court that charge-sheet has yet not been filed

in this case. The learned APP states that it does not appear from the case-diary that the investigation in the case was stayed by an order of

the Court.

If investigation in Raj Nagar P.S. Case No.33 of 2000 is still continuing and in the last 18 years the State police has failed to conclude

investigation in this case, it would not only be in breach of the statutory mandate it is a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India. The matter may assume dimensions of public importance.

Issue notice to the Secretary, Home, Jail & Disaster Management and the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand, who shall file their

respective affidavits giving details of the general directions issued for speedy conclusion of the investigation of the cases in which the

investigation has spilled over more than three years, but charge -sheet not filed. Separate details of such instructions/directions, if any,

issued in the last one year and bare dates of monitoring meetings, if any held, shall also be indicated.

In the above facts, interim order dated 24.08.2018 shall continue till the final disposal of this anticipatory bail application.

Post the matter on 26.10.2018.

Let a copy of the order be given to the learned APP.â€​

On 26.10.2018 for filing an affidavit in compliance of order dated 28.09.2018 the matter was adjourned for today.

The learned APP has prepared a short list of dates, a copy thereof supplied to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

Taken on record.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP states that on 28.09.2018 complete case-dairy was not made available to him and that was the

reason it could not be pointed out that previously the petitioner has approached this Court atleast thrice and other co-accused persons have

also approached this Court. The learned APP submits that due to the aforesaid proceedings investigation in the case could not proceed for

sometime.

An affidavit dated 24.10.2018 in purported compliance of order dated 28.09.2018 has been filed by the Director-General of Police (I/c),

Jharkhand.

The Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management however, has not filed its affidavit. By order dated 28.09.2018 the Secretary, Home,

Jail and Disaster Management as well as Director-General of Police, Jharkhand both were directed to file their “respective affidavitsâ€​.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP states that he has already communicated order 28.09.2018 to the Director-General of Police and

the Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management both, and the nodal officer as well.

There is no application seeking extension of time for filing affidavit by the Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management in compliance

of order dated 28.09.2018.

The learned APP on Court's query states that he has no instruction in the matter on behalf of the Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster

Management.

Not filing affidavit, inspite of two opportunities granted, is an obstruction in dispensation of justice.

For non-compliance of order dated 28.09.2018 by the Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is

imposed upon him. This cost shall be deposited by the Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management with the Jharkhand State Legal

Services Authority, Ranchi (JHALSA), within three weeks.

The Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management is further directed to comply with order dated 28.09.2018, furnishing all material

details which would be necessary for issuing necessary direction(s) if the Department has yet not formulated guidelines for ensuring speedy

disposal of the cases.

Mandate in law is that investigation in a case should be completed within 24 hours, however, the Code itself recognises that in many

cases investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours as indicated under Section 57 Cr.P.C. and that is the reason under Section 167 (2)

Cr. P.C., in cases relating to the offences punishable with the sentence of 10 years if the investigation is not complete within 60 days the

accused is entitled for default bail, if charge-sheet is not submitted within that time. Similarly, in cases relating to the offences punishable

with the sentence of more than 10 years after 90 days the accused becomes entitled for bail, if the charge-sheet is not submitted.

However, in no case investigation in a case, except where investigation has been stayed by an order of the Court, which is not a case in

this case â€" only orders of no coercive action against the accused persons were passed by the Court â€" can remain pending for years

altogether.

The affidavit filed on behalf of the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand is wholly unsatisfactory. None of the issues pointed in order

dated 28.09.2018 has been addressed in this affidavit. All that this affidavit indicates is that after this Court has taken cognizance of the

matter, the office of the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand has taken some action in the matter.

Post the matter on 30.11.2018.

In the event of non-compliance of the Court's order, further cost on each of the officers shall be imposed on the next date of hearing.

Let a copy of the order be given to the Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned APP.â€​

Several orders have been passed by this Court and several affidavits have also been filed by the State, however, it is not known whether

a comprehensive system for monitoring of the cases is in place or not.

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand shall file an affidavit disclosing the steps taken in the last one year by the police department

and he shall produce copies of instructions/orders/directions which shall govern the field of the investigation in criminal cases.

Post the matter on 27.09.2019.

Interim order dated 24.08.2018 shall continue till the next date of hearing.

Let a copy of the order be given to the learned PP.â€​

In the affidavit dated 23.10.2019 filed by the Director General of Police, Headquarters, Government of Jharkhand, details of the cases pending for

investigation have been produced. The chart appended to this affidavit would reveal that as on 03.09.2019 out of total 6516 cases, 1256 cases are

pending for investigation for more than 5 years, 2463 cases are pending investigation for a period between 3-5 years and 2797 cases are pending

investigation for more than 2 years.

As noticed in the order dated 02.11.2018 investigation of a case must be completed effectively and in time as provided under the Code of Criminal

Procedure. A large number of cases pending for investigation; total in number 6516, shakes confidence of the people in the system. Otherwise also it

is not good for the system. There may be various reasons, such as, lack of manpower, lack of expertise, lack of training, political influence and other

extraneous reasons for which the investigation of a case has been stalled, but then, it is necessary in a democracy that the situation is remedied in

time.

Sri P.C. Tripathy, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in A.B.A No.171 of 2016 finding that in a corruption case the

investigation is pending for over 5 years, the matter was converted into suo-motu Public Interest Litigation. On 10.05.2019, the following order was

passed in A.B.A No.171 of 2016:

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection to Vigilance P.S Case No.42 of 2013 corresponding to Special Case No.45 of 2013

which was registered on 16.11.2013.

It is stated that investigation in the case is still pending.

Under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 time for investigation as provided under section 57 is 24 hours, but

investigation in this case has not been completed even after more than 5 ½ years.

One wonders if in the last 5½ years sufficient material has not been collected by the investigating agency to sent-up the present

petitioner for trial in how many years they expect to find out some material against the accused person.

This is a serious matter pertaining to administration of criminal justice system.

On merits, in the affidavit dated 08.05.2019 the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dhanbad has stated that the order

granting anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons have not been challenged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. No reason has been

disclosed in the affidavit dated 08.05.2019 still an effort has been made to distinguish the case of the present petitioner with other accused

persons. I find that in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit dated 08.05.2019, it is admitted that several other accused persons namely, Narendra

Kumar Mishra, Romod Narayan Jha and Tantra Nath Jha who were also holding official positions and said to have misused their official

positions causing huge wrongful loss of the government of Jharkhand, have been granted anticipatory bail, still prayer for anticipatory bail

made by this petitioner is sought to be resisted on the ground that he has abused his official position and caused wrongful loss to the

government of Jharkhand.

Least to say, this affidavit is only for the sake of opposing this application for anticipatory bail.

By an order dated 06.05.2016, interim protection was granted to the petitioner by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. There is no

allegation of misuse of interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 6. 05.2016. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it

is hereby ordered that the petitioner namely,Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar on his surrender before the court below within four weeks shall

be released on bail on executing two sureties of Rs.50000/- each with further conditions that as and when his presence is required by the

investigating officer or the court he shall make himself present before the authority/court.

Considering the substantial question of pubic importance involved in this case; whether investigation into the matters of corruption by the

public servant can go on for years together and, that too, in the teeth of specific directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various

judgments, the Registry is directed to register a suo-motu 'Public Interest Litigation' and place the matter before an appropriate Division

Bench.

Issue notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Home Secretary and the Director-General, Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Separate affidavits shall be filed by these authorities.

The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Jharkhand shall produce a list of cases pending investigation and give

status of the investigation, case-wise.

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through 'Fax'.

It is stated that now suo-motu Public Interest Litigation vide P.I.L No.2439 of 2019 has been instituted.

In view of the importance of the issue which has been noticed in the present case, that is, A.B.A No.5700 of 2017, the Registry is directed to

register a suo-motu Public Interest Litigation and after taking orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand place the matter before

the appropriate Bench.

Vide order dated 24.08.2018, the petitioner was granted interim protection in connection with Raj Nagar P.S Case No.33 of 2000 corresponding to

G.R Case No.296 of 2000 registered under section 406, 409/34 I.P.C. It is stated that now charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. There is no

allegation against the petitioner that he has tried to influence the witnesses or tampered with the evidence. Accordingly, on his surrendering before the

court below, the petitioner, above-named, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella in connection with Raj Nagar P.S Case No.33 of 2000

corresponding to G.R Case No.296 of 2000 on the following conditions:

(i) he shall disclose the place where he usually resides and file documentary proof thereof,

(ii) he shall not change the place of his residence without permission of the court and whenever he is leaving the place of his residence, he shall duly

send information to the investigating officer.

A.B.A No.5700 of 2017 stands allowed.