HARENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for recovery and production of his mother, who according to him, was abducted to prevent her from being examined as witness in a criminal trial. In the writ petition many allegations are made mainly against Prabhunath Singh who is the sitting M.P. from Maharajganj constituency in the district of Chapra and who is described as one of the leaders of the ruling party in the State. It is stated that for the murder of the petitioner 'sbrother Rajendra Rai and one Daroga Rai [Masrakh (Panapur) PS case No. 62 of 1995], Prabhunath Singh along with some other accused was facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2003 in the court of the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The trial court had earlier closed the prosecution evidence even though some material eye -witnesses were not examined but on 23.10.2006 it allowed a petition filed under Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fixing 3.11.2006 as the last date for examining Lalmuni Devi, the mother of the petitioner and Rajendra Rai, one of the victims of murder.

(2.) IT is alleged that on 24.10.2006 at about 1 P.M. Dinanath Singh the brother of Prabhunath Singh, Harendra Singh and some other accused persons descended on village Dhonuki, P.S. Panapur, Chapra armed with deadly weapons and forcibly abducted his mother Lalmuni Devi and father Rama Rai from their house. It was further stated that the petitioner went to Panapur P.S. and submitted a written report (Annexure 2) to the Officer Incharge informing about the abduction of his mother and father by the accused, including the brother of Prabhunath Singh, M.P. The Officer Incharge took the report but he neither registered a case nor took up investigation nor took any steps to rescue or recover the victims of abduction. The petitioner then went to the Superintendent of Police, Chapra and gave him a copy of the report that he had submitted before the Officer Incharge, Panapur P.S. and requested him to rescue his father and mother. But he too did not take any action. Thus, denied of any help at the local level the petitioner came to Patna and on 26.10.2006 submitted a written complaint (Annexure 3) to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. He sent copies of the complaint to the Chief Secretary and the Hone Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and the Home Secretary. Govt. of India but even then no action was taken to rescue and recover his mother. It was further stated that though the petitioner 'sfather Rama Rai was released by the accused on 23.10.2006, his mother continued to be in their custody. It was alleged by the petitioner that his mother Lalmuni Devi was being kept in confinement by Prabhunath Singh or his brother and henchmen and an apprehension was expressed that she would either be killed or made traceless or she would be made to depose in the trial as per their wishes. It was also alleged that in the past too several trials against Prabhunath Singh were similarly frustrated when setting no protection, despite repeated prayers, witnesses finally succumbed to the threats and pressure by him and were declared hostile before the court.

(3.) ON 2.11.2006 the Advocate General stated before the court that on receiving report of abduction of Lalmuni Devi and Rama Rai the police started investigation but on 24.10.2006 itself Rama Rai appeared in the late hours and gave statements before the Officer Incharge and the Subdivisional Police Officer that apprehending some threat from different quarters he and his wife had gone underground for self protection. On coming to learn that a rumour was spread that they were abducted he had come forward to say that there was no truth in it and they had gone in hiding of their own accord. He, however, refused to disclose the where about of his wife Lalmuni Devi. The Advocate General further assured the court that Lalmuni Devi would be given full protection not only for appearing before the court but also otherwise so that she may not be harmed by anyone. On the statement of the Advocate General the court directed for the production of Rama Rai for making his statement before the court personally. The Supdt. of Police, Saran was asked to ensure the production of Rama Rai on 8.11.2006. It was further directed that in the mean while if Lalmuni Devi appeared before the trial court on 3.11.2006, the court may proceed with the case but if she failed to appear on that date, the prosecution case should not be closed till further orders by the court.