@ giBi" IN THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASl'UIl ••, . R.G. TiWBOLI V/s CHHATTISGARH STATE NON RESPONDENT HIMANCHAL PANSARI & OTHERS EiyREFil.CASEMO. 1697/2000 DT.27-12-200p AGAINST HIMR.KCHRL CTNSARI g® & OHTHERS. FILED BY THE CSP KORBA AT DISTRICTCOURT KOil.BA. 2. M.Cr.C.N0.145/2000 & 9/2000 DB.TED 01.12.2000 JUITICIPJVTORY BAIL ORDER GUARANTED TOHIMANCHBL PMiSARI, SAMAROO IAL,ANUSUIYA, GODAWARI AND SHARAD. '.NSME AND ADDRESS (R.5. TAHBOLI, 6/201 BASIYAPARA TAiOtiVTPUR OF APPLICM1T ( DISTT.BILAPUR 36 GRRH} "WRIT PETITION" •' -•la-.i XI-HC-22 T°? •AII'IIM<<, afllw'i's, f»i<vii'H'i< ..!'?..:.{?.:...'S.S..".. tim?ira)tiiqi sn^iqil ft:;ii??3Ts?r '^<4i<^ ^15fl an^F ^aiisre ^ifs'tT ^rafepft^ 'WRif ^ rs^S ff-siwt i? sif^iH an^T ^fc -g .-fc ^%^^. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, sp'T^alf^ r\f 1~T^^ T^^t'Sfi^r^^r' 'OlXcUi Ul LilC J"Ctlti^JllCl , a.ppears a.s Amicus Curiae on Shri Ranbir Singh, Goven^ 3hri M&JIOJ Paranjjp respondents/accused Hiniachall Anusuiva Pansari. Kuin. Godawt unent Advocate for the State. ye, counsel for the Paiisai'i, Sainroo Lal Paiisai'i, ori Ponsari & Sharad Pansari. The deceased was t'tiaiTJ 30.04.1996. The husband and time. The petitioner is faflieri petitioner alleged that certain <\ llie deceased wiie bv tlje Iiusbai rhe nistrict Hospital, Korba c 16.07.1999. It is contended thsj not inttmated to the police t)y ied to Hunachal Pansari cn wife lived together for sonie f-l.St^^t^€~^i-^ Q-^-^.i- 7 ^ti-,— rTlT-i^ UCL-CiASCU. OiUL, UctLa-. 111C ;ruelties were comraittect upon id. Smt. Lala was admitied to 4.07.1999. She dief) on t the inforination of death w&s Tt -!:e- li. 10 also subniitted tliat. even the fat raeiiibers were not informed ab"t without iiifoniiing to the polic^ froui Korba to Bh&tapara Subsequent.ly, a report was lod| basis of this report the pouce re|| the hospltal authorities. her & m.0ther aiid other fanulv )ut tlie cleHtl'i of Sint. LfS-ts- siid the dead bodv 'as brought tbr perforniing last rites. ed by the petitioner and on the gistered Crtme No-31/2000 fbr 1'^^figq -r ^':K XI-HC-22 ?^ -AII^IC)^, 'S^PI®,ra^rciy wt(?irwirai an^t'qil 'f?;n?T3n^li itlMJqi 'Hf^f SITOI ronwHfCT -^- <hNT?1^'1 TR'^ ^ f^t^ iF'l'^K '^i'3ri:gq 311^1 :he offence piinishahle iinrier S sorapletion of the investigatioin, cinar -ction 304-B of T.P.C. Afl:er ie-sheet ha.s been flled on i^S"--. 'E ;"3 r3000 Q r?cs i n s"t" 'f/^Ti?"' cs<"*'^'''iet; ^i\Ji ±^i,Z,^V\^ O.^CLU.J.^L ISJU-i. CI.L-OLI&CU l*^Fi-r*sr^ne T ^•'2T!n^B/;t frv.'ST^e:^!'! f^?"' iyCA 5U115?. 1-TC/CUAICU. ^ULlllSCi. IV^l |Lhe petitioner submits that the S| ;crtaitT. queries and they were TIO\ ^ubmitted that the report ofchei^ the reuort the niode of death Petitioner submlts that green j'eport nas not been shown ui fh^ :Ie further subm.its that a list •l' ^vhich accordmg to the petitioner |;o the CSP, Korba (InvestigatuiR liicluded ui Uie Cliarge-sIiceL. jnsiirance policy amoiint in rfj; Lioerintendent. of Police raised replied separatety. It is slso [ical aiialyst is iiicomplete. In |is shown to be the shock. iHuid mentloned in the FSL Viscera report bv tlie police. wlth docuinents and letters, -f ^ ~1 -y~i-^~k /v--n^^~*i *•»-'^~*i-fr^?"?. -'^^•-? T y-^\.'*v^t: |runs to d/1 pages were given [)fficerl but the saine were not |Ie also suuuiils tli&l llie life (t)f wr ^spect of the deceasRd was ^ncashed and Hiisappropriated b^ the accused. Notices have Tpeen served upon Che respondei|its along'A-ith the compliaiit. 'r'he respondents have not ffled aijiy reply Thc invcstigation has to fegistered offence under Section ^ ^upport of the allegations. If th4 the petltloner filed before the C.S 'onsidered especially xvhere there be f3J.i~. jTUe 'i^c^llcc us.cl B04-B aiid fited the challaii in t docuiuents ore there which \P., Korba, they deserve to be lai'e some letters/docunients. rTit»<r<si^ XI-HC-22 3 -s^ -iwidq, •^a'hT're, raway / < wwffaiirch f°i'b<y an^T^iT R-li.th 3B^I gi'qWBfSf sn^i ^snw Trftg 'hlltcl*!!"! WS ^ feIZt '<r«1($l< ^ SlPg'q Sffl^T Tn siich a mat.ter tike t.his, fiiret facts depends various circums1|an. ihri M Paranjpe, accused persons submlt.ted against these accused perscj accused persons have not c< readv for any enquiry. So far as the State is (| Goveminent Advocate subiniy cu'cuinstances le.a.dine to the il ;t eviderice is not pnssible. The lances. t)unsel for the respondents / so far as the allegations fcus are coi'icen'iecl., s.s tliesc tomitteu anv otlence ftiev ai'e tbat ^a'r'''?"! ..'^..^^ ^S^fy'i T? ^"^ 7^ T^JT-?^1 ^^'l "f^-^T^'^ Ull^ciiicti, oiiii r^cu.iuii oiii^ii. -o the mvestiga.ting Agency as c connection, section 173(81 Cr, L'elow: 173. Report. of Poli investigatlon.- (11 XXX XXX XXX i:~S\ 'VWV •vvr'y •yyy \Ztj AAA AAA AAA (31 xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) xxx xxx xxx (7} XXXX XXX ;<XX ttiat tne ctocuments aiia tn.e bcident woiikl be exainined bv lirected bv fuls Court. In tuis P.C. relevant here aj.id cjuoted ^e Officftr on complRtifin of !'/ (8) Nothing in this sec jfurther investigatio'i report iinder sub-a ton shall he deemed to oreclude in respect of cin ojjence cyier si •^2) ha-s been fonuwded to the Magistrate and ivh^reiipon siich investigation, tne officer in charge of-^ie police station obtains flinher [iTft^ ife^ --<- XI-HC-22 •s^i •^i^id'sf, ^•dl'y'iti, facii'Hy 3n^?r tRra? W(|?ff%W^) fafc<ff' sn^i^r h-u* 3n§w SSi^iqi "^f?^ 31)^1 WIRre^lfet M '^lltcl'il'l *iM<S 4 fSI3t <P<«1< i? sipgit SII^T evidence, oral or dodfu.mentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate afurt^ such evidence in tt\e provisions ofsub-ss} be, apply in relatior^ they apply in relatio^ sitb-s (2). 'TST report or reports regarding /on» prescribed ; and the (2) to (6) skall, as far as may to su.ch report or reports as 'i to a report foruuarded wider Havuig considered ths ;ase and material on record opinion on the inerits of the cas^; lis not a matter wtiere the invesDi I.B.I. and the request niade by t|i. [mat.tcr by C-B.I. is rcjcctcd|. ;ii'cumstances of the case, it is ji|i Igiven to the State to depute an] |Additional Superintendent of Polf Inuditional Superintendent of ^nvestigation in all respects and and circiuTistances of tl-ie ^nd witliout expressmg any I, we ore of the opinion that it ;ation be handed over to the |ie petitioner to investigate the Undcr thc facts and ist and proper ifa direction is loftlcer not below fhe rank of lce to entrust the inatter. The ilice wul conduct tlie fm'ther Pdlic ttiave been flled In thls petitlon |raised by the Superintendenl] |:onsidered strictly m accordance| Slul Stu'ivastava submiy Itherefore, the mvestigation repc ftie docum.ents /letters, which |and the queries, '»vlTlch v/ere of Police would also be w^itli law« tliat the trial is stayed, kt be subiuitted as earlv as bossible to exoedite the trial. Lil\- L1J.CU. irjce the trial is stayed, it isjust [Tft®^fe4 + '^ XI-HC-22 •s^ •^wvP'i, 's'aWT®,i°«ni+ii< *<1*1W] ^r«fl<*i •M aii^i qn h-U'h S!^S sb4i* 'fSW 3ii^T.'?(gia;R •Hftg 5~t- ann proper to direct the inves| report as early as possible pref^i after receipt of the said report[ further in accordance with law. With thc direction aforesa^d, this petition finatly stands disposed of. Before parting, this Coi_u|t appreciates the assistance rendered by Sliri Shrivastava, w^to C-C- as per rules. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^°^%- ^ ^ v^^tt' (ni^crt<TtTi ^w^t ^ fe<^<E^i+^R ^ 3ipa*t sn^ :igat.ing officer to siibmit the 'ablv within four inonths and £he trial court may proceed 10 appeared as Amicus Curiae. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge [Tlt^ ^fo^