Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

Patna High Court Criticizes ‘Lack of Sensitivity and Scientific Rigor’ in Police Investigation of Kidnapping Case – Order Reinvestigation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a scathing judgement dated August 30, 2023, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha criticized the local police for their “lack of sensitivity and scientific rigor” in the investigation of a kidnapping case involving a minor. The case, Basantpur Police Station Case No. 194 of 2012, has been under scrutiny for years due to the police’s failure to recover the kidnapped child.

The petitioner had filed a writ application, expressing frustration over the police’s inaction despite multiple FIRs and representations to various authorities. The Court observed that the police had “not taken adequate steps for recovery”.

Justice Sinha pointed out the “lapses in oversight by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Superintendent of Police,” which contributed to the investigation’s inadequacies. The Court also identified “multiple errors in the investigation,” including the incorrect retrieval of Call Detail Records (CDR) and inconsistent assignment of Investigating Officers.

Invoking Supreme Court guidelines, the Court mandated a re-investigation by the Crime Investigation Department of Bihar. “An officer of at least the rank of Superintendent of Police should lead the re-investigation,” the judgement stated .

The Court also ordered a stay on the proceedings in the District Court until the re-investigation is completed and the final report is submitted by the Crime Investigation Department.

The judgement cited the Supreme Court case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others, emphasizing the importance of “fair and proper investigation” in criminal jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: 30-08-2023

MANSUR ALAM vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

Latest Legal News