1 cri-wp-1675-09 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1675 OF 2009 Papa @ Ravi Vishram Solanki .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Nitin Pradhan, Amicus Curiae. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 30, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition is received from the Thane Central Prison and allegedly supported by other 35 inmates of the same prison. On 8th October, 2009, this court passed an order, appointing Mr. Pradhan as the Amicus Curiae as the petition raised some important questions. By a further order dated 15th October, 2009, this court appointed the Sessions 2 cri-wp-1675-09 Judge, Thane to hold an enquiry and submit a report within two months and in the meanwhile proceedings in CR No. I-7 of 2009 registered against the petitioner were stayed. The Principal District Judge, Thane submitted his report dated 30/4/2010. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with other under-trial prisoners, was produced before the learned JMFC at Vasai on 20/1/2009 and he, along with others, was being taken in the police van to the concerned jail on the return journey. It appears that the under-trials had seen their family members in the court premises with some articles like eatables, medicines and cigarettes etc. and they were not allowed to pass it up to the petitioner and other under-trials. On this count, while in the police van on the return journey, the inmates became aggressive and the police party contacted Shri Chandrashekhar Chougule, the then S.D.P.O., Vasai, now working as Additional Superintendent of Police. He asked the police party to bring the van to the Vasai Police Station and as per the petitioner, the under-trials were taken out of the police van and thrashed out by the police officers. They sustained injuries and were not taken to any hospital, nor were they taken to the court. On the next date i.e. on 21/1/2009, Dr. A.G. Yadav, Medical Officer at the Primary Health Center, 3 cri-wp-1675-09 Navghar examined them, an offence was registered against them and they were produced for remand before the learned JMFC on 21/1/2009. It is the case of the petitioner that these under-trials were mercilessly beaten up while they were in the judicial custody and if there was any incident, as alleged by the policemen, it was necessary that they were re-produced before the learned JMFC at Vasai and they could not have been taken to the police station, as directed by Shri Chougule. It is further contended that they were illegally detained at the Vasai Police Station overnight without registering any offence against them and by way of an after thought, it is claimed by Shri Chougule that he had telephonically talked to the learned Judge and after obtaining permission on telephone, had registered C.R. No.I-7/09 against them. 3. In his report, the learned Principal District Judge, Thane has not found any merit in the allegations made by the petitioner and to the said report he has annexed the statements of some of the under-trials, including the petitioner and the police personnels. There is merit in the contention raised by Mr. Pradhan that if there was any untoward incident that had taken place on the way to the jail, it was necessary that the under-trials were brought back and presented before the court and any further action 4 cri-wp-1675-09 could have been taken only under the orders of the court and it was not permissible for Shri Chougule to direct these under-trials to be produced before him at Vasai Police Sation. It cannot be, as a matter of fact, accepted that Shri Chougule contacted the learned JMFC on phone and under his advice registered the CR, detained them overnight and they were taken for medical examination, as well. There are allegations and counter allegations in the statements recorded. Mr. Adsule, the learned APP, pointed out that there was yet another incident of similar nature that had taken place on 29/6/2009 arising from which CR No. 72 of 2009 has been registered. Mr. Adsule also pointed out that during the years 2000 to 2009, eight FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner, which includes the above mentioned CRs registered at the Vasai Police Station. 4. Mr. Pradhan the learned Amicus Curiae has taken us through the report of the Principal District Judge as well as the provisions of the Criminal Manual and urged that interest of justice would be better served if a fresh judicial enquiry is ordered. As per him, the enquiry conducted by the Principal District Judge is not complete and several aspects have not been addressed to in the same. 5 cri-wp-1675-09 5. We have noted that the alleged incident is of 20/1/2009 and for the first time, the petitioner addressed his letter dated 8/6/2009. It was too late to enquiry into the allegations made. The medical certificates annexed to the enquiry report indicated injuries suffered by the under-trials as well as some policemen, which supports that there was some scuffle between the two groups, either while in the van or in the police station at Vasai. The under-trials ought to have been brought back to the court as they were in judicial custody and C.R. No. I-7/09 could not have been registered without obtaining the orders from the learned JMFC. The exercise undertaken by the Principal District Judge though may appear to be incomplete, but at the same time sufficient time has been spent in conducting the enquiry. 6. Having assessed the totality of circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose off the petition without any further enquiry, but at the same time there is no justification to proceed with C.R. No. I-7 of 2009. 7. Hence, we quash and set aside the said C.R. i.e. C.R. No. I-7 of 2009 registered with Vasai Police Station and accept the enquiry report 6 cri-wp-1675-09 submitted by the learned Principal District Judge. Petition stands disposed off accordingly. 8. We record our appreciations for the assistance of Mr. Nitin Pradhan. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)