ARVIND YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P .

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case diary is available.

(2.) This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was dismissed on merits by order dated 31.10.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10574/2017.

(3.) In the said application also, a copy of the enquiry report given by the Deputy Inspector General (Complaints), Police Headquarters, Bhopal was annexed to show the innocence of the applicant. However, this Court did not rely on the said report and rejected the application filed for anticipatory bail to the applicant by considering the allegations made in the police case dairy. Thereafter, the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was filed and in the said application also a reliance was placed on the enquiry report submitted by Deputy Inspector General (Complaints), Police Headquarters, Bhopal. During the pendency of the said bail application which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.25583/2017 certain queries were raised by this Court and reply was submitted by the State Government. The copy of the reply submitted by the State Government in M.Cr.C.No.25583/2017 has been placed on record by the complainant along with his objection. The complainant has also placed on record the letter dated 5.1.2018 issued by Police Headquarters, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior in which it was specifically mentioned that only the Director General of Police is competent to exercise the powers under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If somebody wants that the matter should be investigated by the superior police officer, then he has to forward a proposal in that regard to the Director General of Police and only after the approval by the Director General of Police, the matter can be investigated by the superior police officer in exercise of powers under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. It is also mentioned in the said reply that R.S. Kaul was never authorized by the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry. It is also mentioned that the letter written by R.S. Kaul, directly to the SHO, was not only contrary to the prevailing practice in the Police Headquarters but it also falls within the category of illegality. It is also mentioned that although R.S. Kaul, had given an enquiry report but it has not adversely affected the merits of the case and none of the accused could get advantage of the said enquiry report. Accordingly, it was observed by the police Headquarters in its letter dated 5.1.2018 as under:- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...