SHAILESH KUMAR @ SHALESH KUMAR, SON OF SHALIGRAM MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARNEI, PO. BERKA, POLICE STATION MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (CAV) - Instant petition originally been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C., as he stood an accused for non-bailable offence initially registered under Sections 341, 354, 376/511 I.P.C. as well as Sec. 08 of POCSO Act, however, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 354, 509 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 08 of POCSO Act, which was registered on the fard-bayan of Anuradha Kumari and allowed vide order dated 18.08.2016, but during course thereof, it was divulged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was produced by the prosecution party before the police on 08.06.2016 and was kept at Police Station lockup and was produced before the Magistrate on 13.06.2016 without having cogent reason in contravention of statutory provision, whereupon the District & Sessions Judge, Gaya was directed to submit a report after verifying the concerned record. The District & Sessions Judge, Gaya had submitted Letter No.118/ Confidential dated 3.9.2016 where-from it is evident that from the written report itself it is apparent that petitioner/ accused Shailesh Kumar @ Shalesh Kumar was handed over to the police by the prosecution party on 08.06.2016 itself which the Investigating Officer incorporated in Paragraph-4 of the case diary. Furthermore, the aforesaid Paragraph-4 of the case diary speaks that the S.D.P.O., Tekari, Gaya directed the Officer-in-Charge, Alipur P.S. that after verification and full inquiry, the accused may be arrested and on account thereof, he was kept at the Thana Hazat and lastly, he was produced on 13.06.2016. In the aforesaid background, the Special Judge, POCSO, Gaya was also directed to submit his report as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, the S.D.P.O., Tekari along with Officer-in-charge of Alipur P.S. were directed to submit explanation and those are on the record. Although, the S.D.P.O., Tekari as well as Officer-in-charge of Alipur filed belatedly.

(2.) After going through the show-cause having been filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, it is apparent that apart from disclosing the activity of the supervising authority that means to say, the S.D.P.O., Tekari while supervising the case, it has also been incorporated that after getting the Court's order dated 21.09.2016, an inquiry was directed to be conducted and as per Paragraph-6, it is evident that under inquiry having been conducted, completed, found the Investigating Officer of the case A.S.I. Santosh Kumar as well as S.H.O. Alipur Bipin Kumar Singh responsible for the lapses and for that, they have been recommended to be suspended. Simultaneously, they are to be dealt with by way of departmental proceeding. The aforesaid show-cause also contains different Annexures divulging the steps having been taken which, by way of supplementary explanation, has been reiterated. Thus, from the show-cause, it is abundantly clear that till receipt of Court's order, S.S.P., Gaya was ignorant of the fact, which she ought to be in terms of police manual, which expected to be being District head.

(3.) The show-cause having been filed on behalf of the S.D.P.O., it is evident that apart from his activity as a supervising authority, it has further been submitted that as per direction of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, an inquiry was conducted wherein S.H.O. Alipur S.I. Bipin Kumar Singh and I.O. A.S.I. Santosh Kumar have been found responsible for the lapses and for that, they are being departmentally proceeded with. However, there happens to be complete silence over the episode as well as disclosure having been made in Para-4 of the case diary where-under it has specifically been incorporated that by an order of supervising authority, accused was kept in Thana Hazat.