IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19686 of 2009 MANOJ PRASAD & ANR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 12 28.04.2010 During the course of hearing of the bail application it appeared to this Court that due to lapses committed by the Investigating Officers in investigation of a case, the accused derive benefit of bail and their ultimate acquittal in trial. Therefore, this Court requested Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna to assist the Court and to suggest ways and means to improve the quality of investigation of a case. The D.I.G., Patna submitted a detailed report referring to various provisions of law and judgments of the Apex Court and other Courts through his letter no.1725 dated 10.11.2009 addressed to the learned A.A.G. III. A copy of the same has been placed of records of the case by the learned A.A.G. III. Thereafter this Court requested the learned Additional Advocate General No.III to discuss overall aspect of the matter with the D.G.P., Bihar, in reference to the said notes prepared by the D.I.G., Patna, and as to what - 2 - further steps could be taken in the matter so that Investigating Officers take up all possible steps during investigation and file the reports only after completing the investigation from all angles so that trial of the case may not fail only on account of the errors committed during investigation. This Court also requested learned A.A.G. No.III to particularly discuss with the D.G.P., Patna, as to what measures could be taken to make the Investigating Officers accountable for the lapses committed by them during investigation. After a number of adjournments granted to the Additional Advocate General No.III, a counter affidavit has been filed today sworn by D.I.G. (Headquarter). Along with the counter affidavit, certain documents have been annexed from which it appears that detailed guidelines and instructions have been issued to the subordinate authorities of the Police Department to monitor, supervise and submit a report with regard to investigation of all cases. Guidelines contain detailed instructions to the - 3 - Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police and other police officers. These instructions show that mainly the supervising officers have been made responsible to supervise the cases on regular intervals and submit reports and take steps for removing defects/shortfalls in investigation and for their correction. However, this Court is constrained to record that nothing appears to this Court in these guidelines to show that the investigating officers have been held accountable for shortfalls during the investigation of a case making them liable for any disciplinary action against them for laches on their part in conducting the investigation properly from all angles. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the following statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit:- “10. That from a perusal of clause 5 of the aforesaid office order, it would be manifest that the Senior Officers including the supervising officers have to submit a report every month with respect to lapses found in course of police investigation of S.R. and Non-S.R. cases and the action - 4 - taken by them against the erring Investigating Officer for such lapses, in course of the investigation” “11. That from the aforesaid office order, it is manifestly clear that apart from the provisions contained in the Police Manual, the Investigating Officers have been made accountable for the laches in the investigation on their part.” To the dismay of this Court, these statements made in the affidavit do not at all reflect from the guidelines annexed with the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any sentence from different guidelines annexed with the counter affidavit to show that the supervising officers or controlling officers have been directed to take action against the erring Investigating Officers for laches committed in course of investigation, nor he could point out any sentence from the said guidelines that the Investigating Officers have been made accountable for laches committed in investigation making them liable for disciplinary action. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents refers to paragraphs 4 and 5 - 5 - of Annexure-A dated 01.08.2009 of the counter affidavit to submit that such disciplinary action has been contemplated in the guidelines. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annexure-A reads as follows :- “ 4.mi;qZDr dk;Zdze ds vuqlkj ;fn iqfyl fujh{kd ,oa vuqeaMy iqfyl inkf/kdkjh@izHkkjh iqfyl mik/kh{kd ds Lrj ij ;fn izfrosnu nsus esa f<ykbZ cjrh tkrh gS] rc iqfyl v/kh{kd, {ks=h; mi egkfujh{kd@ iz{ks=h; iqfyl egkfujh{kd] muds fo#) ;Fkksfpr vuq'kkklfud dkjZokbZ djsaxsA 5.{ks=h; mi egkkfujh{kd ,oa iz{ks=h; egkfujh{kd] iqfyl fujh{kd vuqeaMy iqfyl inkf/kdkjh@izHkkjh iqfyl mik/kh{kd }kjk iznr izek.k i=ksa ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd ds }kjk Hksts x;s izfrosnuksa dh tkWp vius Lrj ls djrs gq, izR;sd ekg v/ksgLrk{kjh ds uke ,d izfrosnu Hkstsaxs] ftlsesa muds }kjk izR;sd ekl vfo”ks’k ,oa fo'ks’k izfrosfnr dkaMksa ds vuqla/kku esa ikbZ xbZ =qfV;ksa] d`r dkjZokbZ ,oa bu dkaMksa ds vuqla/kku Lrj esa lq/kkj gsrq dh xbZ dkjZokbZ;ksa dk fooj.k fn;k tk,xk A” ( emphasis is mine) These two paragraphs speak for themselves. In paragraph 4, Sub-divisional Police Officers and Incharge Deputy Superintendents of Police have been held liable for disciplinary proceeding if they do not submit a report to the Superintendents of Police as per guidelines. In paragraph 5, again Regional Inspector General of Police and Zonal Inspector General of Police have been entrusted to examine the reports and the certificates produced by the Sub-Divisional Police Officers and Incharge Deputy - 6 - Superintendents of Police and submit a report to the Director General of Police in which details in respect of steps for removing the defects in investigation and action taken by them for the purpose of correction have to be reported. These two paragraphs only show that the higher police officers have been made responsible for correct and timely report and for action for removing the defects in the investigation. Contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court does not find even the slightest indication in these two paragraphs which may give an impression that higher police officials have been directed to initiate disciplinary action against erring Investigating Officers. These two paragraphs clearly negative the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit. It appears that Director General of Police and other senior police Officers somewhere lack the will and courage or are not interested in improving the situation by making the Investigating Officers accountable - 7 - for deliberate laches on their part in conducting investigation of cases and leaving out inherent defects and lacunae in investigation to the benefit and delight of the accused, for reasons best known to them. This Court can do nothing more except express its displeasure for this lackadaisical approach of the matter by the concerned authorities. With the only hope that even these guidelines and instructions issued by the Director General of Police are strictly followed by the concerned officers in true letter and spirit, the matter is consigned. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)