UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 2, 92 it was directed that the petitioner should appear for interrogation before the Investigating Officer and he shall not be arrested. Petitioner appeared 1st April, 92 but Investigation Officer refused to interrogate him. On 7.4.92 Shri Radhey Lal Advocate brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer the order dated 2 April, 92 and requested him to interrogate the petitioner. However, nothing have been done. The Investigating Officer was called and he appeared on 18.5.92, but he did not furnish any reply but subsequently he has filed a reply. In the reply & affidavit it is stated that the petitioner did not appear for interrogation on 5.4.92 and that Shri Radhey Lal did not tell him about the order of Court on 7.4.92. Today an affidavit of Shri Radhey Lal has been filed, which discloses that the SHO refused to (illegible). Even from the file of the learned Public Prosecutor it is clear that on April 3, 92 a wireless message was sent to the SHO. In this particular case and according to this information also the Investigating Officer should have known that this Court had issued certain directions. It may also be said that the behaviour of Investigating Officer, is such which requires some reprimand. He has to be fair in his investigation and it is not his job to harras the people and to disobey the orders of the Court if he is otherwise engaged at a particular time then he can fixed up some other time for interrogation but he cannot refuse to interrogate a person when this Court has so directed. As far as, the merits of the case are concerned. The petitioner has stated that one Ramesh is co-owner of the Tractor but police is not interrogating him. It may be stated that Tractor is not a thing which can be concealed in a box and when false implications have been disclosed then the necessity of arresting him does not arise. The petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail in proper conditions. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station Kumher District Bharatpur in F.I.R. No. 77/92 is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Udai Singh he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) with two surities in the like amount to his satisfaction, on the following conditions