Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In its detailed judgment dated 7 April 2021, the Patna High Court examined the tragic Munger firing incident of October 2020, where a young boy lost his life during the Durga idol immersion procession. The petitioner, father of the deceased, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking two major directions — (1) to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a free and fair probe, and (2) to award ₹5 crore compensation for the alleged police firing that killed his 18-year-old son.

The High Court heard extensive arguments from both sides — the petitioner alleging police excess and administrative cover-up, and the State asserting that the Crime Investigation Department (CID) had already taken over the case. The judgment is significant because it carefully balances public confidence in justice with the legal framework governing when courts can direct CBI investigation into incidents involving police conduct.

Background and Facts

• On 26 October 2020, during the immersion of the Maa Durga idol in Munger, chaos erupted when police allegedly pressed for early completion of the procession. The petitioner’s son, an unarmed teenager, was peacefully watching the procession when firing began. He was hit by a bullet and died on the spot.
• The petitioner claimed that the Munger Police, led by the then Superintendent of Police, failed to follow the procedures in the Bihar Police Manual, which require specific warnings and presence of a magistrate before any firing at a public gathering.
• The father alleged that the police obtained his signature deceitfully on a blank paper during post-mortem formalities and later used it to fabricate an FIR against “unknown persons,” effectively diluting the real issue of police firing.
• Dissatisfied with the investigation, the petitioner repeatedly wrote to senior authorities, including the Commissioner, Magadh Division, but no case was registered against the erring policemen for weeks.
• Finally, after media coverage and public outrage, multiple FIRs were registered: one by the police describing the incident as mob violence and another by the petitioner alleging police murder of his son.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner, represented by Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava, argued that a free, fair, and independent investigation is a fundamental right of victims and their families.
• He alleged that the investigation by local police was biased and politically influenced, since the then SP was related to a political leader in power.
• The petition emphasized that the DIG, Munger Range, had issued directions for a proper scientific investigation (including CCTV collection and forensic tests), but these were ignored.
• Relying on several Supreme Court precedents — including R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994), Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011), and Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) — counsel argued that when police themselves are accused, only an independent agency like the CBI can restore public trust.
• The petitioner also sought ₹5 crore compensation for the death of his son in alleged unlawful police firing.

State’s Stand

• The State, represented by the Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore, acknowledged that the earlier investigation by Munger police was unsatisfactory. However, it submitted that the case had since been transferred to the Crime Investigation Department (CID), which is headed by an Additional Director General (ADG) and functions independently.
• The State promised that the ADG, CID would personally supervise the probe and that no local police officer involved earlier would interfere.
• It also assured the Court that officers suspected of tampering with evidence or failing to follow orders would face legal consequences.
• On the issue of compensation, the State maintained that since the matter was still under investigation, it was premature to decide on ex-gratia payment.

Court’s Observations

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, delivering the CAV judgment, made extensive observations:

1. Failure of Local Police:
   The Court found that the Munger police had conducted the initial investigation “in a completely shoddy and perfunctory manner.”
   • No blood samples or CCTV footage were collected.
   • The arms used by police personnel were not tested or verified.
   • Case diaries were left blank for weeks without justification, violating Rule 164 of the Bihar Police Manual.
   • The DIG’s directions to the SP-led Special Investigation Team (SIT) were ignored.
2. Administrative Transfers and CID Role:
   • The Court noted that after its intervention, several police officers were transferred out of Munger.
   • The CID took charge on 3 March 2021, formed a fresh SIT, and prepared a 53-point action plan for re-investigation.
3. Judicial Caution on CBI Transfer:
   • The Court reviewed several landmark Supreme Court decisions on CBI transfers, emphasizing that such directions should be made only in exceptional circumstances where investigation by State agencies lacks credibility.
   • It cited State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010), which clarified that High Courts have power to order CBI probes under Article 226 but must exercise it sparingly.
4. Confidence in CID:
   • Given the State’s commitment and the ADG CID’s assurance of personal supervision, the Court decided not to immediately transfer the case to CBI.
   • However, it directed close judicial monitoring of the CID’s progress and left the door open for a future transfer to CBI if the Court found any bias or delay.

Outcome

• The High Court did not hand over the case to the CBI at that stage but directed the CID to conduct an independent and time-bound investigation, supervised at the level of the ADG.
• The Court mandated the State to ensure non-interference by local police and to transfer any officer obstructing the probe.
• Regarding compensation, the Court noted that once responsibility is fixed through investigation, the question of payment to the bereaved family can be reconsidered.
• The Court thus upheld the principles of fair investigation, accountability, and judicial oversight, while maintaining restraint against premature CBI intervention.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Fair Investigation as a Fundamental Right:
  The judgment reinforces that victims of alleged police violence have a constitutional right to impartial investigation under Article 21.
• Judicial Oversight without Overreach:
  By keeping the investigation under court monitoring instead of immediately sending it to CBI, the Court struck a balance between independence and federal propriety.
• Administrative Accountability:
  The decision compelled the Bihar government to remove and review officers who mishandled evidence or ignored directives.
• Public Confidence in Justice:
  The Court recognized public anger and mistrust following the Munger incident but assured that the judicial process will ensure transparency.
• Guidance for Future Police Firing Cases:
  The ruling lays down a procedural model — independent CID probe under court monitoring first, CBI transfer only if bias persists.

Legal Issues Decided and Court’s Reasoning

• Whether investigation should be handed over to CBI?
  Decision: Not immediately. CID directed to continue under ADG supervision with court monitoring.
  Reasoning: CBI transfer is warranted only in exceptional cases; CID now functions independently.
• Whether earlier Munger police investigation was valid?
  Decision: No. The Court described it as perfunctory and contrary to the Bihar Police Manual.
• Whether compensation should be granted immediately?
  Decision: Deferred. The Court left it open for future consideration after facts are established.
• Whether judicial monitoring can substitute CBI probe?
  Decision: Yes. The Court held that judicial monitoring can ensure fairness when CID acts independently.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. (1994 Supp (1) SCC 143)
• Mohammed Anis v. Union of India (1994 Supp (1) SCC 145)
• West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571
• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79
• Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677
• Rubabuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 2 SCC 200

Judgments Relied Upon by the Court

• State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010) 3 SCC 571
• Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala (2016) 7 SCC 597
• Bimal Gurung v. Union of India (2018) 15 SCC 480
• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762
• K. Saravanan Karuppasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2015 SC 214)

Case Title

Petitioner vs. State of Bihar & Others (regarding alleged police firing and demand for CBI probe)

Case Number

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 68 of 2021

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 571

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
(CAV Judgment dated 07 April 2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava and Mr. Manas Prakash — for the petitioner
• Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General; Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4; Mr. Nadim Seraj, GP-5; Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5; Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-4 — for the State

Link to Judgment

MTYjNjgjMjAyMSMxI04=-zACzOi2jiTE=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.