RAM KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions which came before us in quick succession raised extremely disturbing issues. The writ petitions were based on allegations of a brazen and blatant abuse of power and scant regard to the rule of law. More fundamentally, both these petitions alleged deliberate inaction on the part of the investigating and police agencies and went to the extent of asserting that since the accused wielded immense influence and power, the petitioners not just felt a threat to life but were also convinced that the investigation would be derailed and grave injustice perpetuated.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1648 of 2017 is a Security Officer/Proctor in the Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as "the Institution"]. It was asserted in the writ petition that the main accused [now impleaded as the sixth respondent] along with several armed men and miscreants ransacked the offices of the Institution and caused grievous and serious injuries to its officers and employees. This incident came to be reported and registered by the police naming as many as five accused persons including the sixth respondent and against 5060 unknown antisocial elements. The First Information Report which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 1117/2016 alleged the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The petition alleged that despite the barbaric attack inside the premises of a renowned educational Institution and which incident stood duly recorded by the CCTV cameras of the Institution, the accused were permitted to walk freely and were also alleged to be openly threatening the prosecution witnesses with dire consequences. It becomes relevant to note here that although a First Information Report was lodged on 14 Dec. 2016 no arrests had been made by the police authorities of the named accused, at least, till the matter was taken up before this Court on 10 Feb. 2017. The writ petition further asserted that on account of the influence and power wielded by the accused, the Investigating Officer was not showing any interest in the investigation of the offence and that the petitioner as well as his family members were facing a high level of threat and apprehended danger to their life and property.

(3.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017 is stated to be an eye witness to the daylight murder of his son which occurred on 8 Feb. 2017 in an area falling under the jurisdiction of P.S. Sahpau, District Hathras. This petition again referred to the fact that although the respondents 4 to 8 had been named and were the alleged perpetrators of the crime which led to the murder of the son of the petitioner, they on account of the power and position wielded by them were not only influencing the investigation but also holding out blatant threats to the petitioner and other witnesses. Disturbingly, the petitioner also brought on record copies of newspaper reports and video clips of a news channel which evidenced that the named accused or at least the fourth respondent who was a sitting M.L.A. was sharing the dais in a political rally which was attended by the then executive head of the State. Here too, the allegations were that the police and investigating agencies far from taking effective steps to investigate the crime and apprehend the accused, were, in fact, trying the shield the accused persons and also exerting pressure upon the petitioner and his family members and other injured witnesses to withdraw the case and retract from their statements.