IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.476 of 2011 Vidya Devi . Versus The State of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 05 01.08.2011 This case is yet another case which depicts a very sorry state of affairs. Ordinarily, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in matters of investigation of a crime, but the facts impel us to interfere in aid of rights of citizens which are our constitutional obligations. It is not an abridgment of separation of power or an encroachment of executive power. It is exercise of our constitutional obligation. Petitioner’s husband was a village level worker. For work got done he had to get a completion certificate. The certificate had to be granted by the Overseer and the concerned Assistant Engineer. They asked for illegal gratification to grant the certificate. Petitioner’s husband refused to oblige. He reported the matter to the Vigilance. A trap was laid and the said Overseer and Assistant Engineer were caught red handed. A vigilance case was instituted and investigation started. Because the chargesheet could not be filed within time, both the accused persons were released. On manages to get released on bail, petitioner’s misery started soon thereafter. Petitioner’s husband suddenly vanished. This was in the year 2008. We are now in 2011. Petitioner’s husband has been treated as lost and forgotten property. Petitioner with the said grievance came to this Court for a wake up call to the police. 2 To this Court, two issues of concern arose. First, where the Government in power professes to be fighting corruption, left people caught red handed get bail on technicalities if does not reflect the Government’s true intention and shakes public confidence. The second is that petitioner’s husband did not vanish as a stray case but it has a history behind it. Absence of the petitioner would prejudice the prosecution in the bribery case giving accused a clear win. It is under these circumstances, we directed for counter affidavits to be filed by the D.I.G. of the zone and the Vigilance. Counter affidavits have been filed. So far as delay in filing the chargesheet is concerned, Vigilance has explained that delay was occasioned because of two things. Firstly, the Investigating Officer died of brain stroke only a few days before charge sheet was to be submitted. Secondly, chargesheet could not be submitted without sanction, which sanction, it is submitted, takes months to receive. Thus, giving an advantage to the accused. Be that as it may, the facts clearly reveal that the accused who otherwise ought not to have been released, in view of the serious allegation managed to secure liberty on technicalities or technical failure on part of the investigating agency and the Government. People have a right to question when such failure occurs. Now, coming to the counter affidavit by the Zonal 3 D.I.G., he assures the Court that he would personally supervise the case and ensure recovery of petitioner’s husband. Mr. Ram Pravesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that all that has happened is that some police officers now visit the petitioner’s house enjoy her hospitality and enquire whether her husband has returned or not. They enquire from the villagers whether they have seen the petitioner’s husband as if the petitioner has been hiding her husband. No efforts are made to interrogate the accused persons in this regard or to suspect in this regard. The result is helpless lady has no place to go but to come to this Court. So far as this Court is concerned, it has constitutional obligation in the shape of the Mandamus jurisdiction which is nothing but issuing positive directions to the executive reminding them of their legal obligation to do to their duty. That cannot be said to be an encroachment on executive function. What police should have done and what was their duty, they having failed, by interfering this Court is only reminding them, what they were otherwise directed by the law to do but beyond this even this Court is helpless because the work of investigation is to be done and can only be done by the police and not by this Court. We may note here that we are getting several such cases before us where people are abducted/kidnapped and after sometime the police also gives up and near and dear one has to treat them as a lost property. People are too small to be able to 4 approach the authorities. It is in this situation that in some cases this Court has requested the Director General of Police to set up a Special Cell at the State Headquarter to monitor all such cases involving abduction & kidnapping, because abduction & kidnapping are offences which travel beyond the jurisdiction of a police station, even beyond the jurisdiction of the district and in some cases Inter-State as well. If such a cell is created at the Central Level and there is timely reporting and monitoring then the police at local level would take keener interest in the matter and safeguard rights of the citizens otherwise it is a lo st cause and a lost case which does not go well in a democratic welfare society governed by constitution. This Court would once again request the Director General of Police to consider the matter and take a decision not only with regard to the facts of the present case but also with regard to the constitution of the cell, as indicated above, for greater safety and security of the citizens of the State. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar immediately for consideration. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)