Asha Ranjan V. State Of Bihar And Ors. (2017) (2) SCALE 709

Asha Ranjan V. State Of Bihar And Ors. (2017) (2) SCALE 709

Facts:

This particular case revolves around the tragic murder of a journalist in Siwan, Bihar, in May 2016. The victim, serving as a Bureau Chief of a regional newspaper, fell victim to a fatal shooting by unidentified assailants. The petitioner, who happens to be the deceased journalist’s wife, asserted that the murder could be linked to influential political figures, raising concerns regarding the protection of the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioner’s main contention was that the investigation carried out by the local police in Bihar did not comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 154, which requires registration of First Information Report (FIR) upon receipt of information about a cognizable offense. The petitioner claimed that the local police failed to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation, violating the mandate of CrPC Section 154.

Central argument of this revolved around the local police in Bihar conducting an unfair and partial investigation, citing political interference. The involvement of a former Member of Parliament and influential political figure allegedly influenced the Bihar police authorities, hindering the possibility of an impartial inquiry, as protected by CrPC Section 406.

The petitioner sought the transfer of the case from the Bihar police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure an impartial examination of the journalist’s murder, as the CBI operates independently under the Government of India’s jurisdiction, in line with CrPC Section 161. The case garnered significant media and public interest due to its potential implications on press freedom, emphasizing the urgent need for a fair and unbiased investigation.

Issues:

1. Wheather the police’s investigation lacked fairness and impartiality due to political interference and influence?
2. Whether the circumstances justified the transfer of the case to a central investigating agency?

Arguments:

The petitioner seeks the transfer of the third respondent from the Siwan jail to a jail located outside the State of Bihar, along with the conduct of trials in pending cases via video conferencing. The primary issue was that whether the Court has the authority, under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution, to direct the transfer of an accused from one State to another and to mandate the conducting of pending trials through video conferencing.

The learned senior counsel argued that transferring the third respondent to another state would affect his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court in the said case had noted that there has to be a fair trial and no miscarriage of justice and under no circumstances. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the court noted that delay in prosecuting a guilty person benefits them as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and evidence can be lost.

Article 21 grants certain rights that are not absolute and can be curtailed in accordance with the law, provided due procedure is followed and the curtailment passes the test of reasonableness. The accused does not have an exclusive and absolute right over the process, and the interest of the victim must be considered. The court must balance the rights of the accused and the victims, and the decision on whether the accused should be transferred from Siwan Jail to another jail outside Bihar should be based on the scale of fair trial. Ignoring the need for a fair trial may lead to an unprecedented setback to justice, causing fear and suffering to the petitioners. Therefore, it is essential to carefully weigh the implications and rights involved before making a decision.

The Constitution Bench controversy was about the High Court’s authority to direct CBI investigations within the state despite the Special Police Act’s prohibition. The court ruled that the High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 to transfer a case from one jail to another within the state based on the circumstances, even if not explicitly conferred by the 1950 Act.

Section 3 of the 1950 Act does not create an impediment on the part the court to pass an order of transfer of an accused or a convict from one jail in a State to another prison in another State because it creates a bar on the exercise of power on the executive only.

Judgement

In light of the aforementioned conclusions, the court directed the State of Bihar to transfer the third respondent, M. Shahabuddin, from Siwan Jail, District Siwan to Tihar Jail, Delhi. The court further ordered the State to hand over the prisoner to the competent officer of Tihar Jail after providing prior intimation for his transfer in Delhi. 

It was deemed necessary to ensure that the authorities escorting the third respondent from Siwan Jail to Tihar Jail strictly adhered to the rules applicable to transit prisoners, without granting any special privileges. The transfer was ordered to be completed within a week from that date. Subsequently, the trial for the pending cases was directed to be conducted via video conferencing by the respective trial court. The competent authorities at Tihar Jail and the State of Bihar were instructed to make all necessary arrangements to ensure the accused and witnesses’ availability for trial through video conferencing.

The court’s decision In this case can be considered just and fitting as it upholds the principles of law, preserves the sanctity of the judicial system, considers the public interest, respects the separation of powers, and ensures an impartial investigation. Taking these factors into account, we concur with the court’s ruling in the present case. This appeal lacks valid grounds and is hereby dismissed in accordance with the court’s decision.

Reference:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122252422/

Article by: Bhagwat Mahajan, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin