Patna High Court
Raja Kumar Paswan @ Raja Paswan @ Raja … vs The State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63530 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2024 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Raja Kumar Paswan @ Raja Paswan @ Raja Kumar Son of Vivek Paswan
Resident Of Village - Harpur Aloth, Ps- Musarigharari, Dist- Samstipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-01-2025
Heard the parties.
2. Pursuant to the last order dated 03.12.2024,
A.S.H.O., Musrighsarari, Amit Kumar and the Investigating
Officer, Sikandar Kumar are present in the Court.
3. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection
with Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Section 328, 302, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, lodged on 03.02.2024 by the informant,
Ramjatan Ray.
4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that while he was at his door, Sunil Kumar Rai @ Baua came
and took his son Ranjeet Kumar Rai on a motorcycle but he
failed to return. Later upon search, the informant came to know
that the sons of the informant and Sunil Kumar Rai were lying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
2/8
in unconscious condition. They were taken to Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur. Later, while his son was declared dead, Sunil
Kumar Rai was shifted to Patna for better treatment. Alleging
conspiracy and poisoning of the informant’s son, the F.I.R.
5. On 03.12.2024, while hearing the matter, this Court
noticed that though Sunil Kumar Rai was undergoing treatment,
his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and
charge-sheet under Section 302 of the I.P.C. amongst others was
submitted against the petitioner only because the SIM Card of
the deceased was in his possession.
6. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court
directed the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to get the
statement of Sunil Kumar Rai recorded by the Dy.S.P. as clearly
the investigation was faulty.
7. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the order dated 03.12.2024
read as follows:
“6. There is one version according to which
the informant has alleged poisoning of the
informant’s son only because the SIM was
with the petitioner and the Police has
submitted charge sheet under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
3/8the fact remains that while the informant’s
son died, Sunil Kumar Rai was undergoing
treatment. In that circumstances, it was the
duty of the Police to record the statement of
Sunil Kumar Rai.
7. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP Mr. Bharat
Bhushan endorsed that the police has not
taken the statement of Sunil Kumar Rai to
ascertain whether the deceased and Sunil
Kumar Rai consumed liquor which proved
fatal and/or anyone poisoned them.
8. It seems that Police in a haste to file
charge sheet to meet the deadline do not
even bother to come to a conclusion whether
it is an accident or killing and in a routine
manner charge sheets are been submitted
amongst other under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. This clearly is complete
violation of law and directions given to the
Police from time to time. It has to be noted
that the petitioner is 19 years of age with no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
4/8criminal antecedent and thus a proper
investigation is the need of the hour as he
has a future in hand.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur
has lots to do in the matter. Immediately, the
further investigation of the case has to be
handed over to the Officer not below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as it
is a case where Police has submitted charge
sheet under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code whereas, the narrative points out
alternative possibility of it to be an accident
due to consumption of poisonous liquor. It
has to be repeated that at stake is the life of
a person (petitioner) who is 19 years of age
having no criminal antecedent till date.
10. The Police as such is duty bound to
record the version of Sunil Kumar Rai as
also the other villagers who may have seen
the deceased/Sunil Kumar Rai together
immediately before the occurrence.”
8. Pursuant thereto, a counter-affidavit on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
5/8
the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is on record through
the Dy.S.P. (R), Samastipur in which after thorough
investigation, it has come to the conclusion that the case under
section 302/307/328/128(B) of the I.P.C. has not been proved
rather it is the case under Section 379, 411, 304/34 of the I.P.C.
9. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan submits that
when the two persons (including the deceased) were lying
unconscious on the road, the allegation is that the petitioner took
the purse as also the mobile, as a result whereof the SIM Card
was with him and thus charge-sheet under section 302 of the
I.P.C. was submitted against him.
10. It is unfortunate that the High Court has to
intervene in such matter. When two different versions have
come relating to the occurrence, the Police specially S.I.,
Sikandar Kumar (who is present in the Court) submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused persons under sections 302,
328, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the I.P.C. without proper
investigation and/or taking the pains of recording the statement
of Sunil Kumar Rai. It reflects from the fact that his own Senior
Police Officer (The Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-
Dy.S.P. Sadar-1, Samastipur) has now recorded a different
version and the entire charges have changed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
6/8
11. Due to this faulty investigation by the S.I., Mr.
Sikandar Kumar, the petitioner would have faced the trial
under sections 302 of the I.P.C amongst other. This Court, on
earlier occasion, had taken note of the fact that the petitioner is
only nineteen years of age having no criminal antecedent while
granting him provisional bail for three months.
12. The action of the S.I., Mr. Sikandar Rai is
unpardonable. However, the Court refrains from passing any
adverse order against him and it is for the S.P., Samastipur to
do the needful/take appropriate action in accordance with law as
he is presently posted under him. However, the S.P., Samastipur
must issue necessary guidelines in this regard to all the Police
officials under him so that rule of law is properly followed by
the Police.
13. The petitioner was earlier granted interim relief, as
recorded above, is only nineteen years of age, already suffered
because he picked up the purse and the mobile of the
unconscious person as alleged and has no criminal antecedent,
in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the
relief.
14. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide
order dated 03.12.2024 stands confirmed subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
7/8
following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
15. The personal appearance of S.I., Sikander Kumar
and the Additional Station Head Officer, Mushrigharari, Amit
Kumar is/are dispensed cautioning them to be careful in future.
Due to the grace of the almighty, by way of Government job,
they have got an opportunity to serve the society which they
should do diligently and further see to it that the people who
belonged to the lowest strata of the society should not be made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63530 of 2024 dt.17-01-2025
8/8
victim only because there is no one to listen to their cause.
16. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the
S.P., Samastipur for his perusal and necessary action.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.01.2025 Transmission Date 22.01.2025
[ad_1]
Source link