LAWS(SC)-2025-4-121

MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 23, 2025
Maharana Pratap Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 16/11/2016 [impugned order] of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna [High Court] allowing the respondents' intra-court appeal [L.P.A. No. 516 of 2015] arising from a writ petition [C.W.J.C. No. 471 of 2004] presented before the High Court by Maharana Pratap Singh [appellant]. The judgment and order of the Single Judge dtd. 16/7/2013 was set aside and resultantly, the writ petition of the appellant stood dismissed. The Single Judge had quashed the order dismissing the appellant from service and directed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of the dismissal.

(3.) The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Dog Squad of the Crime Investigation Department [CID] in 1973. He proceeded on earned leave for two days, with the intention of resuming his duties on 8/8/1988. Incidentally, on 7/8/1988, a First Information Report [FIR] was registered on the complaint of one Prem Kumar Singh [informant] against unknown persons, giving rise to Kotwali P.S. Case No. 882 of 1988 for offences under Ss. 392, 387, 420, 342, 419 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC]. The FIR included a request for the formation of a raiding party to apprehend those who had extorted money from the informant by blackmailing him. A raiding party was formed, which proceeded to raid the Rajasthan Hotel in Patna on 8/8/1988. The accused was expected to arrive there to collect Rs.40,000.00 (Rupees forty thousand) from the informant. Meanwhile, the appellant was on his way to the office to resume his duties after completing his earned leave when the informant handed over the briefcase to the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and was brought to Kotwali Police Station. On the same date, i.e., 08/8/1988, the appellant was placed under suspension by his superior authority.