- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Badri Narain Tiwari is in Jail in connection with Crime No. 68 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120-B, I. P. C. of P. S. Mahoba Kanth, District Hamirpur.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the infor mant and the learned State counsel at length. The question of bail apart, a perusal of the case diary and other materials placed on the record raise many question marks in my mind regarding fairness of the investigation in this case by the local police of Hamirpur. Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, unfortunate 'brother of deceased Brijendra Tiwari made specific allegations in the First Information Report that the deceased had earned the wrath of Sri Surendra Singh Yadav, Station Officer, P. S. Mahoba Kanth for the reason that the former had complained to the higher authorities that Sri Yadav was in leaque with criminals operating in the area and that Sri Yadav had extended threats of murder to the deceased. The report goes on to State that the Station Officer had conspired with the applicant and the other co-accused of this case and got the murder committed. These allega tions, true or false required a thorough investigation. By the order of the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur the investi gation of this case was entrusted to Sri B. P. Shukla, S. H. O. Mahoba. Sri Shukla was on a raxor's edge. One hand he had the responsibility of the unpleasant task of investigating a charge of conspiracy to murder against his own colleague who, if not a favourite, was in good books of the High ups in the police administration as, he according to the information given to the Court by either side, now holds the prized post of Inspector Kotwali, Hamir pur. On the other hand Sri Shukla was being accused by the complainant's side of being partisan towards his colleague, Sri Yadav.
(3.) I have perused the case diary carefully and find that much that was required to be investigated in a case of this nature remains to be done. No effort appears to have been made to collect evidence, one way or the other, regarding allegations that Sri Yadav was in leaque with the criminals of the area and his connections, if any, with the accused of the present case. Investi gation on these points is only skin deep. When there were allegations against the Station Officer himself in all fairness the investigation ought to have been entrusted to some superior officer. The case diary shows that at one stage the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur had entrusted investigation to Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer, Mahoba, but it was re-entrusted to Sri Shukla after some time. In the circumstances it was felt necessary to call for a counter-affidavit from the State. Sri Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur has filed counter-affidavit in which he states that Sri Shukla was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 4-5-1992. Hardly a couple of days had passed when he proceeded on leave and hence on 7-5-1992 the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur entrusted the investigation to Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer. The counter-affidavit goes on to state that since Sri Shukla had reported back, the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 12-5-92 again entrusted investigation of this case to Sri Shukla. Annexure C. A.-2, filed with the counter-affidavit is the order dated 5-5-1992 by which Sri Hira Lal was entrusted with the inves tigation of this case. There is no mention in Annexure C. A.-2 that the investigation has been transferred to the Circle Officer because Sri Shukla was proceeding on leave. Curiously enough the order, by which the investigation was laken from the hands of Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer and re-entrusted to Sri B. P. Shukla, has not been annexed with the counter-affidavit. The reason for this change is also not disclosed in the case diary anywhere. The explana tion given in the counter-affidavit of Sri Vikram Singh appears to be far from reality. I may also mention here that the trend of the counter-affidavit of Sri Vikram Singh is to put up a well determined opposition to the case of the complainant. Sri B. P. Sukhla also appeared in the court and he stated that there is a mention in the case diary that there was a talk in the village that the real murderer was Peer Bux. Sri B. P. Shukla was asked if he had interrogated a single person of the village regarding this talk but the answered in the negative. If there was any such talk going on in the village it became the duty of the investigator to interrogated the villagers even if there were not prepared to come out and give evidence in court. It was immaterial whether they admitted or denied such talk.;