Patna Not A Safe Place For Anybody To Reside: High Court Slams Police For Favouring Accused Landlord, Orders SIT Probe Into Assault On Junior Advocates
The Patna High Court on Tuesday, in a scathing rebuke, condemned the Patna Police for allegedly favoring an accused landlord in a case involving the assault of junior Advocates while observing that Patna is not a safe city for anyone to reside in.Presiding over the case, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, “If, in the city of Patna, the Advocates are assaulted by some goons at about 10:00...
The Patna High Court on Tuesday, in a scathing rebuke, condemned the Patna Police for allegedly favoring an accused landlord in a case involving the assault of junior Advocates while observing that Patna is not a safe city for anyone to reside in.
Presiding over the case, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, “If, in the city of Patna, the Advocates are assaulted by some goons at about 10:00 P.M., this Court cannot accept the incident as an isolated incident, but prima facie holds that the city is not a safe place for any people to reside.”
Justice Chaudhuri made the observation while hearing a criminal writ application of lawyer a Junior Advocate of Patna High Court, Abhishek Kumar, who had lodged an FIR against his landlord and goons of Patna's Jakkanpur locality, accusing them of stabbing him over a petty dispute.
Based on the sequence of events in the case, a confrontation occurred on March 1st, 2024, involving the petitioner, his fellow Advocates who shared the same rented accommodation, and the landlord, regarding parking space.
During the altercation, it was submitted that the landlord, along with unidentified individuals, retaliated against the petitioner and his associates, who were also junior Advocates residing in the same rented premises. This resulted in physical assault, with the petitioner sustaining injuries, and his friend, Ranveer Parwat, also an Advocate, being severely injured by a kitchen knife, causing a bleeding wound on his left eyebrow, which affected his left eye.
Initially receiving medical treatment at a local hospital, both individuals were later transferred to Patna Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner submitted that he attempted to file a First Information Report (F.I.R.) at the Police Station, facing resistance from the authorities, but eventually, the F.I.R. was accepted, and a case was registered under Sections 323/308 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
Subsequently, it was stated that the landlord was summoned to the Police Station and was released under Section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Furthermore, in an attempt to protect the landlord and the assailants involved in the assault against the Advocates, it was argued that a complaint was filed by the landlord's wife, leading to Jakkanpur Police Station a case, under Section 354 of the I.P.C., against the petitioner and his Advocate associates residing in the same rented premises.
The Court expressed astonishment, remarking that it was surprising that despite the FIR revealing an assault on advocates with a sharp kitchen knife, there was no explanation as to why the FIR was not filed under Section 326 of the IPC, considering the severity of the injury.
Additionally, the Court questioned why, when the FIR detailed an attack on unarmed young advocates by the landlord and a group of antisocial individuals, and one advocate was assaulted with a sharp weapon on a vital part of the body, no case was filed under Section 307 of the IPC, given the apparent intention of the accused.
Furthermore, the Court queried why no case was initiated under Sections 147/148/149 of the IPC when the FIR itself indicated that the assailants had acted with a common objective to physically assault and cause grievous harm, with a prima facie indication of an attempt to commit murder.
On the contrary, it noted that a case under Sections 323 and 308 of the I.P.C. was registered against the landlord and other unknown persons, and the landlord was called to the Police Station and released under Section 41 (A) of the Cr.P.C. after interrogation.
It was contended by the Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this is not a fit case where the accused persons should be released on an undertaking under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C.
Emphasizing the pivotal role of the legal profession in upholding democracy and dispensing justice, the Court asserted, “The legal profession as well as the duties discharged by the learned Advocates are the onerous duty of helping the third pillar of democracy in dispensation of justice. When from the facts and circumstances, it is ascertained that some young Advocates residing in a tenanted flat have been pursuing their profession in their initial stage, this Court is absolutely clueless to note as to why one or two of them would be assaulted by the landlord and his associates, under whom they stay.”
“The very registration of case presumably suggests that the Police authority attached to Jakkanpur Police Station has taken the side of respondent no. 9 being the landlord to this unfortunate junior Advocates. Therefore, this Court considers it absolutely necessary to releave the Police Officer attached the Jakkanpur Police Station of the investigation of the cases filed both by the petitioner and the wife of the landlord,” the Court added.
The Court has instructed the Senior Superintendent of Police in Patna to establish a Special Investigating Team (S.I.T.), comprising two other officers not below the rank of Sub Divisional Police Officer. It stated that these officers must have no affiliation with the Jakkanpur Police Station to ensure impartiality in investigating the case. Additionally, the Court has urged the Senior Superintendent of Police to preserve the C.C.T.V. footage of the locality and the Jakkanpur Police Station.
During the investigation supervised by the Senior Superintendent of Police in Patna, the Court has directed that consideration be given to the petitioner's claims in the First Information Report (F.I.R.). Specifically, the Court has advised assessing whether offenses under Sections 148/149/324/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code should be included.
The Court requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to render all possible help to the petitioner, the injured and other Advocate inhabitants of the said house, so that, "they can at least stay without fear of being implicated in some heinous offences involving offences against women in future and until further order no coercive step shall be taken against the accused persons in connection with the case registered by the wife."
The Court emphasized, “every citizen has a right to lodge complaint against the wrong doer, but it is expected from the Police authority that the Police shall take action against the wrong doer on ascertainment of fact as to whether such incident actually took place or not.”
Lastly, the Court has instructed the police attached to the Jakkanpur Police Station to cease investigating any cases further. Any entries made in the case diary after 2:15 P.M. on March 5, 2024, will be deemed invalid, it
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Raj, Adv.
For Respondent/s/State : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3, Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 24
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.473 of 2024
Case Title: Abhishek Kumar Srivastava vs The State of Bihar