INDU JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The inscription on Statue of Liberty reads as under :

(2.) In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527), it has been expressed as under :

(3.) The factual exposition as has been elaborately adumbrated in the writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner in Commercial Tax. His house was raided by the Special Police Establishment Lokayukt. Bhopal under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police incharge of Special Police Establishment. Lokayukt, Bhopal on 14-7-2004 at about 3.00 p.m. and on the same day he and other officers took the deceased to the office of Lokayukt, Bhopal at 8.00 p.m. and kept him under custody for the purpose of interrogation. He was detained in the night for the purpose of interrogation. After getting the information the relatives of the deceased, namely, Indrajeet Jain. Pradeep Bhadoriya, Neela Satbhaiya and Vikas Jain were allowed to meet the deceased where they found the deceased in a very frightened state and on an inquiry it was found from the deceased that during the course of interrogation he has been tortured, ill-treated and physically assaulted and that anything may happen to him. It is puforth that on 15-7-2004 Syen T. Pasha Inspector, Commercial Tax had gone to the office of Lokayukt. He found that the deceased was unconscious and no one was present in the office of Lokayukt and observing this situation the said Pasha called the policeman for help for carrying the deceased and took him to Gandhi Medical College, Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where deceased was examined by Dr. Rakesh Jain who found that there was not recordable blood pressure, bruise over the neck region and no respiration and effort was made to resuscitate the respiratory system and eventually he was kept on artificial ventilation, but subsequently he was declared dead. A post-mortem was conducted on the deceased and the doctor opined that the deceased had breathed his last due to asphyxia. A ligature mark was found on the anterior aspect of neck and blunt injury on vertex and many other injuries were noticed. The brother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 15-7-2004 at about 111.10 a.m. at Police Station, Kohefiza. Bhopal of the murder of brother on account of forture and custodial violence by the respondents No. 4 to 10 but an offence under Section 330, IPC was registered. However, later on the matter was investigated by Criminal Investigation Department and an (offence under Section 302. IPC was registered against the accused persons. The grievance that has been putforth is that none has been arrested. It is also highlighted that some of the respondents being apprehensive of their arrest moved this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6087/2004 for grant of anticipatory bail but this Court by order dated 22-9-2004 rejected the said prayer. It is urged that the Investigating Agency has not taken steps to arrest the accused persons and that has left the accused persons to be at large to tamper with the evidence. In this factual backdrop a prayer has been made to arrest the accused persons in Crime No. 346/2004 registered under Section 302, IPC and to issue further directions.