BACHA SINGH @ BACHCHA SINGH Vs. C.B.STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-12-99
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on December 21,2009

Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) ALL the four Criminal Revisions are directed against the order impugned dated 5.9.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M. -cum -Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad arising out of R.C. Case No. 5(S)/04 by which the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners seperately under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge for the alleged offence under Sections 143/149/225/506/353/34 Indian Penal Code were rejected by the common order as aforesaid and the petitioners were called upon to stand charge.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that while the informant - police officer along with other police personnel went to arrest the accused Ramadhin Singh and Rajiv Ranjan Singh in their office in connection with Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 of the alleged offence of murder, it was alleged that the accused Ramadhin Singh, who was there in the office, resisted such his arrest by raising alarm, as a result of which his supporters about 150 -200 in number assembled there and obstructed the police personnel facilitating Ramadhin Singh who managed to escape from the custody of the police by thrashing a constable. In the same sequence it was alleged that in the meantime the accused -petitioner Baccha Singh, the then Cabinet Minister in the Jharkhand Government suddenly arrived there on his vehicle and threatened the informant -police officer and members of the police party present there of dire consequences. On the statement of the informant, Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 143/224/353 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons with specific allegation that they forcibly got the accused Ramadhin Singh released from the police custody. The occurrence took place on 3.10.2003. A Criminal writ vide W.P.(Cr.) No. 239 of 2003 was preferred by one Santosh Kumar Singh prior to the instant Criminal Revision and this Court by order dated 27.1.2004 directed the CBI to take up the matter and to investigate both the Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 638 of 2003 and Jharia P.S. Case No. 330 of 2003 and pursuant to such direction the CBI registered R.C. Case No. 5(S)/04 and after detailed investigation submitted charge sheet against as many as 10 accused persons including the petitioners herein under Sections 143/149/224/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cr. Rev. No. 42 of 2008
(3.) THE learned Sr. Counsel Mr. B.P. Pandey at the outset submitted that the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh being the Cabinet Minister at the relevant time was Intentionally implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry without his participation whatsoever in the alleged offence which could be evident from the written statement of the informant presented at the first instance. The informant was specific that no sooner did the principal accused Ramadhir Singh escaped from the custody of the police after thrashing the constable, the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh arrived there by his own vehicle and threatened the police administration of dire consequences by extending threat to the informant and the police party. Even if the contention of the informant could be taken as per his narration, no offence much less alleged as proposed by the prosecution for charge could be made out against the petitioner, and therefore, he may be discharged. Advancing his argument the learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Pandey submitted that Section 224 of IPC deals with resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension and it was no where alleged that the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh had ever resisted or obstructed in the duty of the police personnel or that there was allegation that the police party had gone there only to arrest the petitioner Bacha Singh @ Bachcha Singh and he resisted such arrest or that Bachcha Singh was wanted in a murder case or any other offence cognizable in nature, therefore, no offence much less the offence proposed by the prosecution is made out against him and the learned Special Judge grossly erred by refusing to discharge him without appreciating this material aspect.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.