:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2008 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2008 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 14 OF 2008 Amin Haroon Solkar ..Petitioner versus Narayanrao Rane & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WITH WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2008 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2008 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 16 OF 2008 Dr. Avisha Kulkarni ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Anoop Choudhari, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. Mubin Solkar and Mr. Ashish Yakub for the Petitioner in PIL No. 14 of 2008. Mr. V. P. Patil for the Petitioner in PIL No. 16 of 2008. Mr. S. R. Borulkar, P.P. with Ms. R. M. Ghadvi, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Both the Public Interest Litigations have :2: been listed for admission before this Court, today. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2008, the petitioner who is practising advocate has filed this petition referring to the incidents of 26th November, 2008 onwards, as well as to the Malegaon Bomb Blast stated to have occurred on 29th September, 2008. The petitioner has made the following prayers: a) To direct Respondent No. 1 to file a detailed Affidavit in this Hon’ble Court disclosing the names of the leaders and the details of the financial and logistical support provided by them to the Pakistani Terrorists involved in the terror attacks dated 26.11.2008. b) To issue appropriate writ and/or direction to Respondent No. 6 to perform its statutory duty by summoning Respondent No. 1 to question him about his statement and also subject him to brain mapping and Narco analysis test so as to find out the truth. c) Respondent No. 2 to file a detailed Affidavit in this Hon’ble Court disclosing the names of those leaders who were pressurizing him to go slow and change the ATS team probing the Malegaon blast case. d) To constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into the recent terror attacks dated 26th November, 2008, and to investigate into the mysterious death of former ATS Chief Hemant Karkare. :3: e) To transfer the investigation of Malegaon bomb blast dated 29.9.2008 from ATS, Maharashtra, to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by this Hon’ble Court and directing the said constituted SIT to periodically submit a report on the progress of investigation. f) To monitor the investigations carried out by the SIT’s in terms of prayer clauses (d) & (e) above by directing the SIT’s to submit periodical reports of investigation. g) To pass such other and further orders and to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper as such contingencies which may arise, in the interest of justice. 3. In Public Interest Litigation No. 16 of 2008, the petitioner claims to be a Ph.D. in Musicology and has worked as an interpreter in Russian language, and presently is working as a social activist and claims to take up causes for general public. She while referring to the events of 26th November, 2008 onwards has made the following prayers: (a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requiring Respondent No. 2 to supply information in respect of involvement of Political leaders in recent Terrorist Attacks and terrorist activities in Mumbai & the State, as per his statement before Print & Electronic Media on 6/12/2008 and 7/12/2008 respectively. :4: (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to take action against erring Political Leaders for involvement in respect of terrorist attack on Mumbai from 26/11/2008 to 29/11/2008 and terrorist activities. (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to take action against Respondent No.2 for giving false information in respect of Political leaders involvement in Terrorist Attack, in the alternate. (d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to take action against Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, i.e. Respondent No.2 for his lapses by not informing the Government about his information in respect of involvement of Political leaders in respect of Terrorist Attack in Mumbai & terrorist activities. (e) For such other and further Orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has challenged the very maintainability of these Public Interest Litigations. According to him the prayers made are beyond the purview and scope of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in any case granting any of these prayers, at this juncture, would adversely affect the investigation and larger public interest. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merit or otherwise of objection with regard to maintainability of these Public Interest Litigations and would leave this question open. :5: 5. The Petitions are primarily based upon the death of the former ATS Chief Hemant Karkare and other persons killed in that operation. The Petitioner in PIL 14 of 2008 in paragraph 14 has projected another point of view which according to him is based on the press cutting and that angle is not being taken up seriously by the Investigating Agency. A common prayer and fact in both these Petitions is that Shri Narayanrao Rane, Minister in the State on 6th and 7th December, 2008, made a statement "Some Netas aided terrorists and some political leaders were involved" and also that he had made " a responsible statement and will reveal the details at an appropriate time". This was published in the Times of India dated December 7, 2008, copy of which has been placed on record. According to these petitioners, the Investigating Agency ought to have issued summons to the said Respondent No.2 i.e. Mr. Narayanrao Rane, in terms of Section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code and recorded his statement and investigated the matter in accordance with law. While pointing out some lacunas in the investigation, a prayer is also made for transfer of investigation of the incident of 29th September, 2008 to a Special Investigation Team. :6: 6. It is a settled principle of law that investigation within the framework of Criminal Procedure Code falls primarily in the field of Investigating Agency. The Courts are not expected to interfere or control the investigation. The exception to this general rule is only when the entire unfair, unjust, improper and investigation which is influenced by external factors is brought to the notice of the Court supported by proper facts and documents that the Court may be inclined to interfere. We have no hesitation in stating at the very outset that none of the petitions before us make out a case which would fall in any of the class of cases indicated above. In terms of settled cannons of criminal jurisprudence, we see no reason to grant any of the prayers made by either of the petitioners. In this direction the Investigating Agency essentially must be provided free hand to investigate the matter and in the manner as they may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of a case. It is expected of every Investigating Agency to conduct free, fair and just investigation irrespective of who is the person involved or towards whom the finger is pointed out for the purposes of investigation. On the aspect of the :7: statements said to have been made by Mr. Narayanrao Rane, the learned Public Prosecutor states that though the statements are said to have been made on 6th and 7th December 2008, no investigation is made in that regard. He further states that due investigation would be made. Since no investigation is made till now, it is not necessary to go into this aspect at all and we have therefore not issued notice to Mr. Narayanrao Rane. In a fair investigation, it is an essential feature of the criminal jurisprudence that the Investigating Officer should freely and fairly conduct investigation uninfluenced by any factors and every effort is expected to be made not only by the State Agency and the Investigating Officer but by all concerned that truth must prevail and investigation must reach the real event and the offender is brought to books. 7. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State after some arguments, but then fairly stated that a Team of Senior Officers have been constituted to investigate into the entire episode which is headed by a Joint Commissioner of Police Crimes. He further states that this Team will examine all the aspects of every event which has happened during the :8: unfortunate period of 26th to 28th November, 2008 including the death of Mr. Hemant Karkare and other Police Officers who have been killed in the operations. 8. In view of the statement made, there is no need for this Court to pass any further directions. For the reasons aforestated, we decline to interfere in either of these petitions but the observations based in this Order as well as the statement made on behalf of the State shall be given due regard by the Investigating Agency. We further feel that it will be appropriate for not only these two petitioners but even for all concerned to render help to the Investigating Authorities rather than to keep on filing the petitions, which would hardly further the public cause. The petitioner in PIL No. 14 of 2008 if he is desirous can get in touch with the police and inform the facts which he claims to be true to his knowledge and so can the petitioner in the other petition. However, in the circumstances of the case, while dismissing both these Public Interest Litigations, we pass no order as to costs. :9: CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J.