Shaukin vs State of U. P. and others

Amar Saran and Ramesh Sinha, JJ.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi on behalf of the interveners Gaya Prasad Pandey and Ashutosh Pandey. Learned counsel for the intervener has filed an intervention application alleging that a first information report at Case Crime No. 208 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act was lodged against the intervener Gaya Prasad Pandey, and the co-accused Babbey and Sonu. The said offences are not punishable with imprisonment above 7 years. Even the offence u/s 3 (1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act was only punishable with a maximum punishment of 5 years. It was submitted that some simple injuries were caused in a petty dispute over construction of a wall and in any case no caste derogatory words are alleged to have been used so as to bring the case within the purview of the S.C./S.T. Act.

Learned counsel for the interveners submits that he requested Navin Kumar Tiwari, S. O. Police Station Maheshganj district Pratapgarh not to take the accused persons in custody in violation of Section 41 (1) (b). Cr. P.C. and the directions of this Court dated 11.10.2011, passed in the present case. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011, Shaukin v. State of U. P. and others, as the accused were wanted in a case punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment, they had no criminal antecedents, and were not habitual offenders, they owned agricultural land and dwelling houses and had roots in the community and were unlikely to repeat the crime, which appeared to be a one time affair. He also approached the Circle Officer Sadar, Gorakhpur Sri Prem Singh, investigating the case and also moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh not to grant judicial remand of the accused and to allow interim bail to the accused in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 (1) (b) and Section 41A, Cr. P.C. and the High Court''s order dated 11.10.2011 in Shaukeen''s case interpreting the said provisions.

However, ignoring his pleas. Judicial remand was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate and the accused persons were forced to remain In jail from 6.11.2011 to 10.11.2011. No interim ball was granted to them. They were only released on bail on 10.11.2011 by order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh.

In view of these submissions we direct Navin Kumar Tiwari, S.O., Maheshganj, district Pratapgarh and Prem Singh Dhania, Circle Officer district Pratapgarh to be present before this Court on 24.1.2012 for submitting their explanations as to why they have flouted the order dated 10.11.2011, passed in the present writ petition Shaukin v. State of U. P. and others, and why action may not be initiated against them.

We must also express our displeasure at the casual and routine manner by which the concerned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to allow judicial remand of the accused on the application moved by the concerned police officer, without examining whether the pre-conditions for granting judicial remand laid down In Section 41 (1) (b), Cr. P.C. and the decision of this Court in the present writ petition were disclosed, and in his failure to allow interim bail to the accused till such time as their bail application was finally considered.

Learned A.G.A. has filed an affidavit of compliance today on behalf of the D.G.P. U. P. It is taken on record. It contains two new circulars issued by the D.G.P. to subordinate police officers on 11.11.2011 and 20.11.2011 for ensuring strict compliance with the provisions of Section 41 (1) (b) and Section 41A. Cr. P.C. and refers to the order of this Court in the present case Shaukin v. State dated 11.10.2011. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is allowed some further time to file a detailed affidavit of compliance and progress report about the exhaustive steps which have been taken for ensuring compliance of the order passed in the present case. He may do so by the date fixed.

Compliance reports of the earlier directions in the present writ petition have also been submitted by the District Judges in a large number of districts in U. P. On the next date the Registry shall submit a report in tabular form regarding the districts from where compliance reports have been received from the District Judges concerned. Let reminders be sent to those districts where compliance reports of the orders in this writ petition have not been received. The Registry must also indicate at the next listing whether any difficulties in Implementing the directions of this Court in the present writ petition for complying with the newly introduced provisions of Sections 41 (1) (b) and 41A. Cr. P.C. have been Indicated by any judicial or police officer.

No compliance report has however been received from the U. P. Legal Services Authority, Lucknow as to whether they have issued pamphlets and got news paper announcements made that relief would be given to accused wanted for offences punishable with less then seven years to the following effect : "Saat saal tak ki saza pane wale abhiyukton ko rahat," as directed in the order dated 11.10.2011. The Member-Secretary of the authority may file his compliance report by the next listing. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General for communication to the police officers concerned and also to the District Judge, Pratapgarh for giving appropriate directions to the Magistrates concerned for ensuring compliance of the provisions of Sections 41 (1) (b) and 41A, Cr. P.C. and the orders of this Court in the present writ petition. He should also communicate this order to the Member Secretary, U. P. S.L.S.A. This writ petition may now be registered as a Criminal Public Interest Litigation on the next listing.

List this case on 24.1.2012.