LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-93

PARASHU RAM DOHRE Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Decided On November 08, 2023
Parashu Ram Dohre Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharm Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Quazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) By means of the instant petition, the applicant has sought following:-

(3.) Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner with other members of the Police team, on an information, raided and arrested Sarfaraz on 18/6/2003 from Nepal border and 1 KG of Charas, i.e., contraband substance was recovered from his possession and a First Information Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 202 of 2003 under Sec. 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act 1985'). Thereafter, Shrinath Yadav was appointed as Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and submitted the chargesheet on 6/7/2003 but in the meanwhile, the father of the accused wrote a letter to the Human Rights Commission, that his son is being falsely implicated and thereafter the Special Secretary Home wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich to conduct an enquiry regarding allegations levelled by the father of the opposite party no. 3 and Circle Officer, Nanpara, Bahraich was appointed to enquire the matter. Thereafter recording the statement of opposite party no. 2 and the witnesses, submitted his report that the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2, are not correct and ignoring the report of the Circle Officer dtd. 17/11/2003, the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, directed to the Director General of Police to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 202 of 2003 to CBCID, with immediate effect. In the meantime, the trial Court took cognizance on the chargesheet dtd. 28/7/2003 submitted by the Investigating Officer and charges were also framed against the opposite party no. 3 vide order dtd. 24/1/2004.