9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1508 - HC - Indian LawsAbuse of State and Police machinery by the ruling dispensation in registering 6 FIRs against him in 4 different police stations - violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - Prima facie there appears to be an attempt at implicating and victimizing him in criminal cases and mala fides, malice and collateral purpose in registering the FIRs against the petitioner and his associates. A scheme and or conspiracy and or pattern and or stratagem appear to have been devised to entrap the petitioner and his associates to ensure their incarceration and custody inter alia to embarrass them. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the most vital rights that a citizen of this country is required to be secured with. The rights under Article 21 and importance thereof cannot be overemphasized. The rights under Article 21 are so very basic and fundamental and clearly touch upon human rights that they are guaranteed even to non-citizens. The deprivation of such liberty is required to survive the tests of due process and or the procedure established by law. In the instant case there is prima facie evidence before this Court of abuse and or misuse of State and police machinery in registering cases for investigation based on half-truths, fiction, concoctions and nonevents. The State shall furnish information as regards any further FIR registered against the petitioner. The State shall also obtain leave of this Court before arresting the petitioner or taking with any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases - Investigating Authorities shall, as far as possible, considering the public responsibilities of the petitioner, accommodate him, if he is required to give any statement, from a place and time convenient to him. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of State and Police machinery. 2. Violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. Quashing of FIRs and transfer of investigation to CBI. 4. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 versus alternative remedies under Cr.P.C. 5. Allegations of political vendetta and malicious prosecution. 6. Bias and inadequate investigation by State police. Detailed Analysis: 1. Abuse of State and Police Machinery: The writ petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and leader of the Opposition Party, alleged that the State and Police machinery were being misused by the ruling dispensation to register multiple FIRs against him in different police stations. The petitioner claimed that this was a form of victimization and harassment that began after he changed political allegiance in December 2020 and intensified post the Assembly elections in May 2021. Specific instances of FIRs were cited, including cases registered at Maniktala, Nandigram, Contai, and Tamluk Police Stations, which were perceived as targeted actions against him and his close associates. 2. Violation of Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution: The petitioner argued that the actions of the State police violated his rights under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court acknowledged the fundamental importance of Article 21, emphasizing that any deprivation of liberty must adhere to due process and established legal procedures. The Court found prima facie evidence of abuse and misuse of State and police machinery, leading to the registration of cases based on "half-truths, fiction, concoctions, and non-events." 3. Quashing of FIRs and Transfer of Investigation to CBI: The petitioner sought the quashing of all FIRs against him or, alternatively, the transfer of investigations to the CBI due to a lack of faith in the State police. The Court stayed proceedings in specific cases (Contai PS Case No. 248/2021 and Nandigram PS Case No. 110/2021) and allowed investigations to continue without coercive action in others (Maniktala PS Case No. 28/2021 and Tamluk PS Case No. 595/2021). The Court also mandated that the State obtain leave before arresting the petitioner or taking coercive action in any further cases. 4. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 versus Alternative Remedies under Cr.P.C.: The State objected to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, suggesting that the petitioner should seek remedies under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court, however, upheld the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the Supreme Court's dicta in cases like Pepsi Food Ltd. and Arnab Goswami, which clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure doctrine and cannot be abridged by any provision of the Cr.P.C. 5. Allegations of Political Vendetta and Malicious Prosecution: The Court found substantial force in the petitioner's argument that there was an attempt to implicate and victimize him in criminal cases. The Court noted a pattern of overzealous and malicious actions by the State police, including the abrupt withdrawal of Z category security after the petitioner's change of political allegiance, and the registration of multiple FIRs against him and his associates post-election. The Court highlighted instances where the State police acted contumaciously and illegally, such as the arrest of Rakhal Bera despite court orders against it. 6. Bias and Inadequate Investigation by State Police: The Court rejected the State's argument that bias could only be alleged against an individual and not the police machinery as a whole. The Court found that the circumstances indicated a broader pattern of bias and malicious prosecution, with multiple FIRs registered across different police stations against the petitioner and his associates. The Court also criticized the lack of preliminary inquiry in certain cases, such as the Contai PS registering an FIR for a 2018 incident without investigating the delay in filing the complaint. Conclusion: The Court granted interim relief by staying proceedings in certain cases and restricting coercive actions in others. It emphasized the importance of Article 21 rights and the need for judicial intervention to prevent abuse of State machinery. The Court's decision underscored the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to address issues of malicious prosecution and political vendetta, even when alternative remedies under the Cr.P.C. are available.
|
