The Patna High Court recently directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Bihar to conduct enquiry into the alleged assault of an advocate by a policemen at Mokama Police Station [Anand Gaurav v. State of Bihar and Others].Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad noted that if the allegations against the concerned police officials are ultimately found true, the petitioner-advocate would be entitled to compensation.
"Let this matter be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, State of Bihar who is expected to review the entire matter and order appropriate inquiry by a competent officer not attached to the concerned Police Station in any capacity and such inquiry into the matter be conducted within a period of six weeks from today. A report submitted in course of such inquiry be brought to the notice of this Court with an affidavit by 23rd of February, 2024," the Court said.The Court was hearing a plea by the lawyer seeking appropriate enquiry into the matter by a competent authority.A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner-advocate on the allegation that he tried to snatch the pistol of the sub-inspector (respondent) of Mokama Police Station.However, the petitioner argued that the entire allegations in the FIR are false, concocted and baseless. It was contended that the CCTV footage at the police station will prove that the petitioner was actually a victim in the case and was assaulted by the respondent.The petitioner further alleged that the respondent ensured that the relevant CCTV footage was deleted and since the CCTV footage is not available, the investigation of the case has been kept pending for more than two years without any progress.It was further claimed by the petitioner that the then Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) had seen the CCTV footage, wherein it was clear that the respondent had assaulted the petitioner in the premises of the police station.He further said that though written requests to preserve the CCTV footage were made by him, he was threatened by the then ASP to the extent that if he would indulge in proceeding with the matter, then he would be dealt with otherwise.In order to pressurise the petitioner, a false case has been instituted by the respondent so that the petitioner would be ready to settle the case, it was claimed.The petitioner also placed on record an audio clip of the conversation between him and respondent prior to the alleged occurrence. He argued that in the said audio, the respondent can be clearly heard demanding bribe and his share in all such cases in which vehicles have been ordered to be released by the court.
"If the audio clip is correct, there is a voice from the other side demanding bribe from the petitioner, however, this audio clip is required to be identified and voice test shall also be required to investigate on this aspect of the matter," the Court had observed on December 21 while issuing notice to the respondent and the Superintendent of Police (SP).
On January 11, the Court was informed by the SP that the case lodged by the petitioner against respondent is true, while the case against the petitioner by the respondent has been ordered to be closed for want of evidence.It was also informed that the CCTV footage (as referred by the petitioner) has already been deleted and is no longer available. In this regard, the Court observed,
"...the CCTV footage is now not available and it is apparent on the face of the entire facts that people who were getting implicated because of the presence of the recording of the entire occurrence in the CCTV footage have ensured that the same is not preserved. If the allegations made in the petition, as are now appearing prima facie correct, are ultimately found true, the petitioner would also be entitled for compensation," the Court said.Accordingly, the Court directed the DGP Bihar to review the entire matter and order appropriate inquiry by a competent officer not attached to the concerned police station in any capacity. It also said that such inquiry into the matter be conducted within a period of six weeks.The Court will hear the matter next on February 23.
TAGS: Climate Crisis Breakthrough Treatment Tech InnovationLegal Decision Advocate Assault Space Exploration
