Suman Singh vs State of C.G.

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—The applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 143/2012 registered at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a)(2) read with Section 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act has filed this application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail. It is alleged by the prosecution that on receiving secret information to the effect that illicit liquor is transported in a Maruti Van from Lormi, the said vehicle was intercepted. However, the persons sitting in the Vehicle escaped taking advantage of darkness. The witnesses accompanying the police party identified the fleeing person as Suman Singh, the present applicant. The Maruti Van was found to carry 222.5 bulk litres of foreign and country made liquor of different brands/varieties.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the communication sent by the concerned station House Officer to the CJM Mungeli on 30th July, 2012 (Annexure A-2) in which it was stated that at the relevant time when the alleged offence is said to have been committed, the applicant was present in a hotel called as Down Town Hotel at Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, therefore, there is no evidence of the applicant being involved in the offence and he should be discharged. Thus the contention is that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he deserves to be released on bail.

Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

Once an accused is produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest and a remand is sought from the Magistrate on satisfaction of the Investigating Officer that the accused is involved in commission of offence, the only stage where the applicant can be released by the Police is by filing final report before the concerned Magistrate reporting that no case is made out against the accused, however, contrary to the procedure, the SHO sent a communication to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for discharging the accused. This Court, therefore, directed the concerned SHO and Superintendent of Police to explain the circumstances. The said officers appeared before the Court. However, the S.H.O. did not utter a single word to justify the communication.

In the matter of Pradeep Dutta Bhowmik and Others Vs. State of Tripura and Another, the following has been held by the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High Court in Paragraph 9 as under:

However, there is one aspect of the case which disturbs this Court. Admittedly, the complaint petition of the O.P. No. 2 has been treated as FIR by the Police u/s 156(3) of the Code that being so, once a case has been registered, it must be followed by investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Once an investigation has been completed, the law enjoins the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to forward a final report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report--See section 173 of the Code. The police report u/s 173 of the Code includes both the final report u/s 169 of the Code and a charge sheet u/s 170 of the Code. In other words, the completion of the investigation must culminate in filing either a charge sheet u/s 170 or a final report u/s 169 of the Code. Even though investigation appears to have been done by the Police by treating the complaint petition of the O.P. No. 2 as FIR, the contents of the Annexure-H is neither a final report nor a charge sheet. It is not understood as to under what provisions of law the concerned Inspector of Police has submitted the said letter. From the contents of the Annexure-H, it also appears that investigation of the case has been done haphazardly and in a casual manner. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done, in that way or not at all. The concerned Inspector of Police must either submit a final report or charge-sheet against the petitioners before the learned C.J.M. once he has completed the investigation of the case. The contents of Annexure-H has obviously prevented the learned C.J.M. from proceeding in a manner prescribed by law. In that view of the matter, the concerned Inspector of Police has acted illegally.

Though the Investigating Officer, upon an investigation is competent to submit a report in terms of Section 169 Cr.P.C., however, a simple letter for discharging the accused if neither appropriate nor is in accordance with law. There is nothing, on record to inform this Court as to what orders were passed by the concerned Magistrate after receipt of the communication Annexure A-2. While arguing the matter learned Government Advocate informed this Court that the charge sheet shall be filed within a week. Considering the huge quantity of liquor seized from the Maruti Van and the investigation is going on, this Court does not deem it proper to release the applicant on bail, at this stage. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant would be at liberty to renew; his prayer for grant of bail after filing of the report u/s. 173 of Cr.P.C.