Savvy Thakur
Published on: October 20, 2022 at 22:39 IST
According to the Allahabad High Court, the influence of money impedes the conduct of an impartial investigation.
The accused was charged, among other things, with violating Section 149 of the IPC at the time the court was debating a bail plea.
Sanjeev’s bail request was being heard in court.
He was charged with rioting while carrying lethal weapons (148 IPC), inducing an attempt to commit murder (307 IPC), and organizing an unlawful assembly with the intent to commit murder (149 IPC).
The court took notice of the fact that, at least initially, the accused parties had not shared a common motive for leading to the murder of the dead as the dispute (between the accused parties and the deceased) had arisen suddenly when the defendant moved the court to request bail in the case.
The Court concluded that no violation of Section 149 had been established and noted that, in numerous instances, the police had been found to have implicated the accused in violation of this IPC provision even if the section’s prerequisites had not been met.
The Court supported its views in its order with references to earlier times when the British government controlled the police.
Further pointed out that the inquiry at the time was carried out in accordance with the government’s directives and their intention to rule this nation, therefore the charge sheets that were submitted were not the outcome of a free and impartial investigation.
The Court also stated that following independence from the British police state, India transformed into a welfare state, making it more challenging to address problems like racial unrest, political unrest, student unrest, terrorist activities, an increase in white-collar crimes, etc.
Notably, the Court said that because of the increased difficulties it was facing, the police force started conducting a mechanical investigation of the offences that were entrusted to it for a free and fair investigation.
“The investigating officer is subjected to pressure by the influential persons of society to give a report as per their command. The influence of money in conducting an investigation is quite evident and it is a very big hurdle in the free and fair investigation of a crime and case…”
“The investigating officer is also under pressure of Senior Officers, who do not favorable see any departure from the established practice of justifying the implication of an accused by collecting evidence in this regard.”
“They feel it safe to justify implication of an accused by submitting investigation reports against the accused, except in few cases, where they or their political patron is interested otherwise.”
The Court further observed that the police had only recorded statements from the complainant and had not recorded any statements from witnesses on the side of the accused.
“The version of the accused side, as usual, is missing. Therefore, on the basis of one-sided and flawed investigation the implication of the applicant under Section 149 I.P.C cannot be justified,” the Court added.
As a result, the accused, who was charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, and 504 IPC, was granted bail after providing a personal bond and two sureties, each in an amount equal to the bond, to the satisfaction of the court in question.
Case Title: Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 18458 of 2022]