IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46037 of 2005 Radha Govind Singh, Son of Bhanu Pratap Singh, resident of Village- Khalashpur, P.S. Bhabhua, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua ----------------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 13. 07-07-2010 This is a glaring case of throttling the initiation of the trial. In this case long back in the year 1995, two lives were taken away and few received fire-arm injuries, still the case is at the charge stage. Long back in a case reported in 1995 (3) Cr.L.J. 2935; Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S.Bangarappa & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the observation made by Krishna Iyer, J in the following term: “It is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal Courts excel in slow-motion. The procedure is dilatory, the dockets are heavy, even the service of process is delayed and, still more exasperating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions------------”. The slow-motion becomes much slow-motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. F.I.Rs. are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petitions. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage of trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the prosecution loses interest- the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior Courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages of criminal cases. Such 2 interference should be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course.” The petitioner, who was chargesheeted in Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 163 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 147,148,149,323,324,307,302,364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(11-B) A,25,27,30 and 35 of the Arms Act after the order of cognizance passed on 5.11.2001 in Bhabhua P.S. Case No.163 of 1995, filed a Cr.Revision vide Cr.Rev.No.153 of 2001, which was rejected on 31.8.2002, had approached this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.27833 of 2002. The said petition, i.e. Cr.Misc.No.27833 of 2002 was finally permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an application for discharge in the court of the learned Judge, who was in seisin of the trial by order dated 20.7.2004. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-1 at page 37 to the present petition. While the case reached to the stage of charge, the petition, which was filed on 18.11.2002 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , was pressed and finally by order dated 9.11.2005, the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur ( Fast Track Court I) by assigning a detailed reason on 9.11.2005 rejected the petition of discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the second round before commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed the present petition on 6.12.2005 invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order of rejection of his discharge petition. The present case continued under the heading for admission for quite a long time and thereafter on 31.1.2007 a 3 Bench of this Court, called for a carbon copy of the case diary (legible one) of Bhabhua P.S. Case No.163/95 corresponding to S.Tr.No.187/02 from the court of Addl.Sessions Judge –cum- F.T.C.I, Bhabhua and directed to list this case after receipt of the same. While calling for the case, this Court observed that till further orders, further proceeding in the court below in S.Tr.No.187/02 shall remain stayed. Thereafter, the stay continued. Subsequently, the present case was taken up on 23.7.2008. However, on the ground of bereavement in the family of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for two weeks. After several months on 18.3.2009, when the case was taken up, none appeared to press this petition. Accordingly, this application was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the case was subsequently restored in view of order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Cr.Misc.No.12493 of 2009. After restoration of the present petition, again when the case was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 18.2.2010 on the prayer, the case was adjourned for a week. Thereafter, on 7.5.2010 again when the case was taken up for hearing on the point of admission, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for granting one week time. However, this Court while allowing prayer for one week time vacated the interim order of stay dated 31.01.2007. On 20.5.2010 one day prior to the closure of the Court for Summer Vacation, the case was got passed over for the day. On re-opening of the Court after Summer Vacation on 21.6.2010, it was ordered 4 to place the case on 23rd June, 2010 on the top of the list and finally after hearing the parties on 24.6.2010 order was reserved. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure describes that if the court considers that an accused is required to be discharged, then while passing the order of discharge, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned court to assign a detailed reason. Meaning thereby that for the purposes of rejection of prayer for discharge, there is no requirement to assign a detailed reason. In a criminal proceeding, trial is the rule and discharge is exception. The petitioner even at the time of cognizance took an untenable stand that his alias name is not Tuna Singh, but he is Radha Govind Singh S/O Bhanu Pratap Singh. In the F.I.R. the informant had specifically named four persons as accused and 20- 25 unknown accused persons, who participated in the present occurrence, in which two persons were killed and few also received fire-arm injuries. In the First Information Report, the informant had identified three accused by name, who are (i) Shiv Prasad Singh, (ii) Bhanu Pratap Singh and (iii) Prabhu Singh. In the fardbeyan of the informant Uma Kant Upadhaya , while disclosing names of aforesaid three accused , he alleged that accused Bhanu Singh was instigating other accused persons to kill all the persons and he will bear all the expenditure and thereafter one of the accused fired twice from his gun on one Abhimanyu Pandey , who instantaneously fell down . In the said occurrence, 5 one Ved Prakash was injured by one of the accused from rifle and immediately thereafter Bhanu Singh from a close range fired several shots. The informant along with Mahanth and others were inside. The informant along with other had gone to the Math for offering Prasad and while the informant and others were there, number of accused persons including Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu Singh surrounded the Math and started firing and occurrence had taken place, in which two persons succumbed to the injuries and few were also injured. While the occurrence was going on, Police party arrived and thereafter the life of the informant could be saved and accused persons fled away. Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu Singh is none else but the father of the petitioner. Sri D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that prior to the filing of the present case,i.e. Bhabhua P.S. Case No.163 of 1995, one another F.I.R. was lodged vide Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 162 of 1995 relating to the same occurrence on the basis of fardbeyan of one Shiv Prasad Singh ( who is one of the F.I.R. named accused in Bhabhua P.S. Case No.163 of 1995). It was argued that the petitioner was not having any alias name at Tuna Singh and without his identification, the police had chargesheeted the present petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-6 to the petition, which an order is passed in an Anticipatory Bail Petition, i.e. Cr.Misc.No.16580 of 1996. It 6 was argued that since nothing was collected against the petitioner, this Court had granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide its order dated 7.1.1997 passed in Cr.Misc.No.16580 of 1996. It was argued that during the investigation, nothing was collected showing involvement of the petitioner. In this case Dr. Maya Nand Jha , learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. While referring to different paragraphs of the case diary, Sri Jha has argued that the petitioner was also known as Tuna Singh and parentage of the petitioner is the same, which has been indicated in the case diary. It was submitted by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor that the plea, which has been taken before this Court, can be termed as defence and same can be taken during the trial before the court below and such dispute cannot be decided by this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, Vakalatnama was filed by Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandey on behalf of the informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has also opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the materials available on record including the case diary. From the record, the Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The 7 plea of identity that the petitioner is not Tuna Singh cannot be examined by this Court. These questions can be looked into appropriately by the trial court. Since the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that it was not possible for the Investigating Officer to put the petitioner on T.I.Parade to get this feeble confusion clarified. Moreover, parentage of the petitioner and his address cannot be disputed. Even during the trial, an accused can be identified by the witnesses, while an accused is put in dock. Of course, this observation was not required to be recorded by this Court that too, while hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but since time and again it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not having alias name as Tuna Singh, this Court has clarified the position. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out an exceptional case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in his favour and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. I am of the view that only rejection of this petition will not serve the purpose, but for the ends of justice as well as for expeditious trial, it is necessary to direct the court below to proceed with the trial in the present case at least twice in a week. If the charge in the present case has not been framed till date, it is directed to take final decision on the point of charge within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy 8 of this order and after framing of the charge, the trial court is further directed to conclude the trial within a period of eight months from the date of framing of the charge. It is further directed that on each and every date all the accused persons shall remain physically present before the trial court, failing which their bail bonds shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned trial court will take step for taking the accused persons in custody and in case such violation is committed, the accused shall be taken into custody. It will be considered that the accused has violated the terms and conditions imposed by this Court, accordingly the court below will take appropriate steps. The concerned Superintendent of Police is also directed to ensure that on the ground of non- appearance/production of witnesses, conclusion of the trial may not hamper. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below as well as the concerned Superintendent of Police forthwith. In this case, earlier original case diary was received. Accordingly, the office is directed to remit back the case diary to the court below without any delay. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )