- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Sita Soren, on her I.A. No. 2766 of 2013, seeking permission to intervene in this matter so that she may bring on record true facts.
(2.) IT will be appropriate to recapitulate the facts of the case that in the election of Rajya Sabha in the State of Jharkhand, there were serious allegations of giving bribe for votes and it is popularly known as "Horse Trading" during election. In view of the serious allegations coupled with the recovery of about more than Rs. 2 crores, the Election Commissioner issued notification on 30.3.2012 whereby counting of the votes of the final election of the Council of States -Rajya Sabha was stayed. Two petitions, one being 'Public Interest Litigation' and another individual litigation were filed which are registered as W.P.(PIL) No.1801 of 2012 and another W.P.(C) No. 1802 of 2012. Both the petitions were heard together and dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 05.04.2012 in which one of us (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) was a party. While dismissing the petitions, the matter was handed over to C.B.I. for investigation and for taking further steps. In pursuance of the said Judgment dated 05.04.2012, C.B.I. registered a case and started investigation. The present petition has been filed with the allegation that the investigation is not proceeding in spite of passage of long period. However, petitioner alleged that during pendency of the investigation, the witnesses namely Vikash Kumar @ Shunty Pandey, Vikash Singh and one Jaya Kant Kumar, who are the prosecution witnesses, have been threatened and there is allegation of abduction as levelled by the complainant on the basis of which a F.I.R. was registered by the police. In that case also, the accused is not being apprehended. The accused is the applicant of I.A. No. 2766 of 2013 namely, Smt. Sita Soren. When this matter was listed before this Court on 11 th January, 2013, this Court directed the State Government to give their stand on the plea of the petitioner that some of witnesses have been tortured and one of the witness has been kidnapped and F.I.R. has been registered and in that situation, what steps have been taken by the State Government to protect the witnesses in C.B.I. case. On 22nd January, 2013, C.B.I. submitted investigation report in a sealed cover which after perusal, to maintain secrecy, we returned back it to learned counsel for the C.B.I. It was submitted on 22nd January,2013 that investigation is in the process of completion and for taking further steps, some administrative sanction will be necessary, therefore, two months time was required. This Court observed that since this investigation is at the final stage, seeking time of two months is too large time, however, C.B.I. was given above time. On 22nd January, 2013, the status report was submitted by the State Government also, obviously, to answer the allegations of torture and kidnapping, referred above, wherein the present applicant is the accused. This Court ordered on 22nd January, 2013 that since there are serious allegations and matter is sensitive one, without observing anything, we directed the State Government to complete the investigation expeditiously so as to find out the truth in the matter. Thereafter, the matter came -up before this Court on 19th February,2013. On that day, learned counsel, who appeared for Smt. Sita Soren in I.A. No.2766 of 2013, pointed that he has filed one Vakalatnama on behalf of Sri M.L. Manjhi, who is father of the applicant Smt. Sita Soren, M.L.A. This Court observed that mere filing of the power without one being party is of no help, then this Court observed that otherwise also in this matter the only direction issued to the State Government is to complete the investigation and then the State Government was directed to submit status report within two weeks so as to know the progress in the investigation. On 06th March, 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation in the alleged case of kidnapping of one of the witnesses in the case of Horse Trading in Rajya Sabha Election, 2012 is not proceeding and the accused is not being arrested. It was pointed out that accused has already been provided with security personnel from the State and the accused is moving with security personnel and, therefore, the State has every knowledge of movement of the accused of the case, and if the accused is required to be arrested for the lawful reason, then why the I.O. is not arresting the accused. This Court took note of this fact and found that it is difficult to believe that security personnel of the State, obviously, who are attached to the applicant -accused, have no contact with their higher officers including investigating agency and this Court observed that in this situation, it is difficult to believe that if arrest of the accused is necessary, in that situation why the accused has not been arrested. Today, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the applicant -accused has yet not been arrested.
(3.) IN the backdrop of these facts, this I.A. No. 2766 of 2013 has been submitted by Smt. Sita Soren in this Court on 4th May, 2013 through her counsel. Applicant Smt. Sita Soren has pointed out that her father lodged a complaint case against husband of Smt. Reena Devi and her brother Pramod Kumar Pandey, who was working as a Driver of the applicant - intervener, for theft of 'Tippers' and their spare parts. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that 'Tippers' are the Dumper. It is submitted that only as a counter blast, the allegation of kidnapping has been levelled against the applicant and she lodged F.I.R. i.e., Doranda P.S. Case No. 616/2012 under Section363 and 365 of the I.P.C. against the intervener. It is submitted that the intervener is availing the remedy given under law and not an absconder and at present, one Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3827 of 2013 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which she has prayed for Anticipatory Bail. It is submitted that the writ petitioner is trying to mislead the Court by giving incomplete information. In view of the above reasons, the applicant may be given opportunity of being heard.;