Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.716 of 2005 ====================================================== Rabindra Chaudhary, Son of Ram Nagina chaudhary, resident of village and P.O. Maniyach, P.S. Pawana, District Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Patna 2. The Commissioner – cum – Secretary, Home (Special), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. the Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Masgistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah 5. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur (Arrah) 6. The Circle Officer, Sandesh, Bhojpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s Prem Kumar Jha Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocates For the State : Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA IX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN C.A.V. ORDER 14 18-05-2012 Through this writ application the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for making payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for an appointment of petitioner’s elder son, namely, Chandesh Chaudhary on compassionate ground Patna High Court CWJC No.716 of 2005 (14) dt.18-05-2012 2 / 13 2 on the post of Grade IV on account of murder of petitioner’s innocent minor son Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary by the extremist organization on 7.2.1998. Shorn of details, facts of the case necessary for consideration of this case are discussed as under:- The petitioner’s minor son, namely, Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary aged about 13 years was found missing from 4.2.1998 after he had gone to attend a cultural function at Dihara. On 6.2.1998 Sandesh P.S. Case No. 10/1998 was lodged against unknown persons under [STATUTE] as the petitioner had apprehended kidnapping of his son. However, on the very next day, i.e. on 7.2.1998 the dead body of the aforesaid minor son of the petitioner was recovered from a well situated at Dihara as a result of which [STATUTE] . was added in the aforesaid case. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] . against 11 named accused persons belonging to some extremist group on 6.5.1998. It is stated in the writ petition that deceased son of the petitioner was student of Class VII in Khopira Middle School at Sandesh and his another son is about 23 years of age and has cleared his matriculation examination. Patna High Court CWJC No.716 of 2005 (14) dt.18-05-2012 3 / 13 3 The Circle Officer, Sandesh vide letter No. 87 dated 1.6.2000 (Annexure 1) submitted a detailed report with recommendation for payment of Rs. 10,000/- an ex-gratia to the petitioner but even that meager amount is still to be paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Bhojpur vide his letter No. 681 dated 16.11.1998 as contained in Annexure 2 has recommended for sanction of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner as the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ara has recommended for payment of such amount on account of the fact that on 7.2.1998 the extremists have killed the son of the petitioner. Aforesaid matter remained pending before the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Home(Special) Govt. of Bihar. The State of Bihar has come up with a circular, as contained in letter no. 25(C) dated 12.1.2001 (contained in Annexure 3) raising the earlier compensation amount that was being paid to the dependants of the deceased in accordance with the earlier notification dated 21.09.1987 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit) from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and, further, employment in Government to one person from such victim families in case of death due to terrorist / extremists / caste rivalry or election related violence or mass murder etc. However, the Patna High Court CWJC No.716 of 2005 (14) dt.18-05-2012 4 / 13 4 case of the petitioner is that the matter had remained pending all along even after a lapse of about 13 years. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State – respondents. However, during the pendency of this case, when the matter was taken up for hearing on several occasions a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents stating that the file containing recommendation of the concerned District Magistrate is not traceable in the relevant office of the State Government. However, subsequently a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 stating therein that though the letter dated 16.11.1998 ( Annexure 2) of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur was not made available to the answering respondent in spite of several reminders to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur and no file related to the matter is available in the Home (Special) Department, however, on the basis of typed copy of the letter which has been filed in the instant writ application a reasoned order has been passed on 25.8.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The order has been appended as Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit. Thereafter, I.A. No. 8665 of 2011 has been filed by Patna High Court CWJC No.716 of 2005 (14) dt.18-05-2012 5 / 13 5 the petitioner seeking leave to challenge the aforesaid order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as such development had taken place during the pendency of the writ application after about 6 years of filing of same in a hurried manner when the matter was taken up for hearing by this Court and certain directions were issued to the respondents. For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 15.12.2011, I.A. No. 8665 of 2011 was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to challenge Annexure 4 / Annexure B. The State authorities were also granted liberty to file counter affidavit to the stand taken by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 25.8.2011 as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit as well as Annex

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.