Carelessness On The Part Of Investigating Officer: Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To Accused Persons In Haldwani Violence Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to the accused persons who were allegedly involved in Haldwani violence that occurred in the month of February this year.
The accused persons approached the Court via appeals challenging the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit said, “The manner in which investigation proceeded clearly reveals the carelessness on the part of the Investigating Officer as to how slow the investigation proceeded with, that too in such a situation where the appellants were languishing in judicial custody.”
The Bench noted that in three months’ time, statements of only 8 official witnesses and four public witnesses were recorded.
“The height of sluggish investigation is that in the first month only two public witnesses and one official witness were examined”, it added.
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan represented the appellants while Deputy Advocate General (DAG) J.S. Virk represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
An FIR was lodged on February 8, 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 427, and 435 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 4 of Uttarakhand Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 2003, and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 against unknown persons. As per the FIR, the officials from Nagar Nigam, Tehsil, and Police went to a place in Banbhoolpura locality to demolish two structures allegedly encroachments on public land – one Madarsa and one Mosque, which was already sealed and fenced. When officials reached the spot, they faced resistance from the local public, who formed a mob and started pelting stones at the officials and petrol bombs were also thrown in the process. During this process, Police officials also rushed to the Police Station Banbhoolpura after receiving of reports that some persons attempted to set the police station on fire; petrol bombs were thrown on the Police vehicle and the service pistols and cartridges of Police officials S.O. Mukhani were also snatched.
The appellants were arrested during investigation in a period of two days. Under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) under Section 167(2)(a)(i), the maximum period of detention of under trial is 90 days. If the investigation is not completed within 90 days, the accused persons are entitled to get default bail. In respect of the appellants, the offence under Sections 15 and 16 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) were added. As per the appellants, the Trial Court extended the period of investigation and their detention beyond the period of 90 days and hence, they sought default bail before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties in great detail and having gone through the record of the case, in particular the Lower Court Record, it is noticed that the appellants are in judicial custody since the date of their arrest i.e., 13.02.2024 and 16.02.2024 and a considerable period of 90 days has expired, during which period it is noticed that no substantial progress has been made in the investigation.”
The Court said that the manner in which the investigation proceeded also speaks volumes when it is seen that the arms recovered on February 13, 2024 were sent to the FSL only on April 1, 2024 after inordinate and unexplained delay of 45 days and further the articles seized on April 16, 2024 were sent only on May 18, 2024 after the period of 90 days was over.
“Moreover the reason which has been cited by the Investigating Officer does not impress us that for the investigation yet to be completed the custody of appellant was at all required. It is quite surprising that one of the reasons cited for investigation is shown as “the prosecution sanctioned awaited”, it further remarked.
The Court also enunciated that the right to life and liberty is one of the integral parts of the Constitution and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right. It added that the custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation, the enactments cannot allow the appellants to remain under incarceration.
“The proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the U.A.P.A. Act, 1967 is exception to 90 days period and it can only be resorted to when it is not possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days. This is discretion of the Court and if the Court is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond said period of 90 days it can order to extend the period up to 180 days”, it noted.
The Court said that the appellants cannot be made to suffer for such a sluggish investigation. It took note of the fact that the Investigating Officer kept silent and did not proceed with the investigation with promptitude and it is only on the expiry of period of 90 days he suddenly awakes from his slumber to move an application that further time is needed to complete the investigation.
“Such kind of interpretation which deprives citizen of this country of his valuable right to life and liberty, cannot be made”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and granted bail to the appellants.
Cause Title- Mujjamil and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another (Neutral Citation: 2024:UHC:6150-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, Advocates C.K. Sharma, Nitin Tewari, Vijay Kumar Pandey, Manish Kumar Pandey, Shahid Nadeem, Mujahid Ahmad, Stuti Rai, and Ram Yadav.
Respondents: DAG J.S. Virk and Advocate R.K. Joshi.
