Principal Secretary (Home), D.G.P. U.P, and S.S.P. Budaun were directed to appear in person before court.

Hon’ble Devendra
Pratap Singh,J. 
Hon’ble Akhtar
Husain Khan,J. 
Heard learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record. 
This is a sad saga
of a father seeking justice for his daughter who was a victim of gange rape
involving influential persons. 
The young daughter of the petitioner, who was a student
of B.A. Part-II in Maharana Pratap Goverment Degree College, had gone to appear
in her Sociology examination on 23.4.2008. However, she did not return even
after considerable time and enquiries could not reveal her location, forcing
the petitioner to lodge a missing report at Police Station Bilsi in district
Badaun on 29.4.2008.
The petitioner persisted with
his private enquiries when he was informed by the witnesses that on the date of
incident, his daughter had been seen in the car of one Tajendra Sagar and
Neeraj Sharma, the petitioner immediately informed the police on 4.5.2008. A
case crime no. 378 of 2008 was thereafter registered under section 366 I.P.C.
at the aforesaid police station against the aforesaid two persons. The victim
was chance recovered on 6.5.2008 and her medical examination was done on
17.5.2008 and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was also sought to be
recorded on the said date but the Magistrate refused on the ground that the
victim was not in state of mind to give her free statement as fear was writ
large on her face. Ultimately, her statement was recorded on 22.5.2008 and
based upon it, a final report was submitted on 25.9.2008.
 
After recording her statement under
section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim and her father approached several authorities
alleging that her statement was recorded under duress and while she was under
influence of drugs and finally she gave her affidavit to the District Judge,
Senior Superintendent of Police etc. on 1.7.2008. Thereafter, a protest
petition was filed on 28.11.2008 alleging therein that Neeraj Sharma was a
distant relative of the victim and he used to come to her house and thereafter
he started
bringing Tejendra Sagar which was objected by her and on the
fateful day she was forcibly dragged into a car by them along with other
unidentified person and after being drugged unconscious, she was driven upto
Lucknow where again she was drugged and raped by the aforesaid two persons and
also a close relative of Tejendra Sagar, Yogendra Sagar the then siting M.L.A.
of the Ruling Party.
She was repeatedly gang raped by them for several days.
Upon raising of public out cry, she was released in Muzaffarnagar and allegedly
recovered.
 
The Magistrate rejected the final report and
treating the protest petition as a criminal complaint, recorded the statement
of the victim, her father, eye witnesses, doctors who had examined her under
section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter summoned Tejendra Sagar and Neeraj
Sharma under section 366 and 376 (G) and 506 I.P.C. while Yogendra Sagar,
respondent no.4 herein was summoned under section 376(G) and 506 I.P.C. vide
order dated 18.8.2009.
� 
Tejendra Sagar challenged the summoning order through 482 Cr.P.C
application before this Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated
21.10.2009. Against the said order, he preferred a SLP before Hon’ble Apex
Court but it was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2009. After this round
of litigation, the respondent no.4 filed a revision before the District Judge
along with an application for condonation of delay but it was rejected on the
ground of delay vide order dated 6.7.2010. This was again subjected to
challenge by respondent no.4 in writ jurisdiction. The Court set aside the
technical order of the District Judge and directed him to decide the revision
on merit vide order dated 18.7.2012. Upon remand, the revision was dismissed on
merit vide order dated 22.8.2012. The respondent no.4 again filed 482Cr.P.C.
application before this Court but a Learned Single Judge of this Court by a
detailed order dated 14.9.2012 dismissed the 482 Cr.P.C. application mainly on
the ground that the impugned summoning order has been upheld even by the Apex
court. 
Thereafter various summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable
warrants were issued in pursuance to which, two co-accused surrendered and
their bails were also rejected but the present respondent no. 4 kept avoiding
appearance before the trial court. Having failed his legal attempts, the
accused persons exercised their influence and started pressurizing the victim,
petitioner and the family members for withdrawing the protest petition and
compromising the case and when they resisted, fabricated criminal cases were
registered against the brothers of the victim, the petitioner, the witnesses
etc. at Police Stations Bilsi, Ojhala, Civil Lines and Kotwali Ojhani. Five
cases were lodged against one brother of the victim, three cases against other
brother of the victim, one case against the petitioner and nine cases against
the witnesses, this fact is evident from a detailed order of this Court passed
in bail application no.30150 of 2010 rejecting the bail application of the
co-accused Neeraj Sharma vide order dated 6.4.2011. 
As neither the orders or warrants of the trial court were being
executed nor the respondent no. 4 was submitting himself for trial, the
petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition in March, 2013 seeking
coercive steps against the accused respondent no.4 and execution of the
warrants and other process. 
This Court has issued various
directions on 4.4.2013, 16.4.2013, 205.2013 etc. but till date the accused
respondent no.4 is still roaming freely and has not submitted himself for
trial. On earlier occasion, the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district
had assured the court in person for execution of the warrants but that also
remained unfulfilled assurance on paper. Later on, affidavits have been filed
on behalf of the State stating that they are making their best effort to
apprehend the respondent no.4 and secure his presence before the Court but it
appears that the exercise is merely paper work. 
The Court is left with no other
option but to summon the highest of the police department to ensure the
execution of the non-bailable warrants and to secure the presence of the
accused respondent no.4 before the Court. 
Accordingly, the Principal Secretary
(Home), Director General of Police, U.P. and Senior Superintendent of Police,
Budaun shall either ensure execution of the non-bailable warrants and custody
of the respondent no.4 and his production before the trial court before the
next date fixed or else all the three officials would appear in person along
with their respective affidavits of explanation. In case, non-bailable warrants
are executed and the accused respondent no.4 is apprehended and produced before
the trial court, the said three officials need not appear in person but cause
an affidavit to be filed through Station Officer, Police Station Bilsi,
district Budaun informing the Court about the action and the details of the
execution as aforesaid. 
Let three copies of this order be
given to learned A.G.A. within forty eight hours for information to the
aforesaid three officials. 
List on 29.4.2014. 
Order Date :- 25.3.2014 
AU 

2 comments on Principal Secretary (Home), D.G.P. U.P, and S.S.P. Budaun were directed to appear in person before court.

  1. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary (Home), Director General of Police, U.P. and Senior Superintendent of Police, Budaun shall either ensure execution of the non-bailable warrants and custody of the respondent no.4 and his production before the trial court before the next date fixed or else all the three officials would appear in person along with their respective affidavits of explanation. In case, non-bailable warrants are executed and the accused respondent no.4 is apprehended and produced before the trial court, the said three officials need not appear in person but cause an affidavit to be filed through Station Officer, Police Station Bilsi, district Budaun informing the Court about the action and the details of the execution as aforesaid.
    Let three copies of this order be given to learned A.G.A. within forty eight hours for information to the aforesaid three officials.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: