A day thereafter, i.e. on 19.8.1998, the National Human Rights Commission for short NHRC received a companyplaint from Mr. A.K. Sinha alleging illegal detention from 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994.
Subsequent to the admission of LPA, two other CBI officials Shri Bishwanath Singh, the then SI, CBI and Shri Jha, the then Deputy SP, CBI also filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
NHRC filed SLP C 8220/2001 against the same interim order.
The brief cases did number companytain any incriminating material.
The Special Judge remanded him to judicial custody for a fortnight with a direction to the Jail Superintendent to get him medically examined and to submit the report.
The petitioner prayed for reopening the case and to take a fresh decision after giving him adequate opportunity to present his case.
This was followed by searches of the houses of his close relations and companytractors at Patna and Ranchi.
More so, as per the officers own showing, they were accompanying the petitioner from Ranchi to Patna and back for the purpose of making recoveries of certain incriminatory articles.
By a speaking order dated 22.1.2001, the Division Bench admitted the appeal as the appeal raised important and debatable questions.
Legal questions arising in the appeal were broadly indicated by the Division Bench.
After reaching the outskirts of Ranchi.
Sri Sinha companyplained of chest pain and wanted to be examined at a private nursing home named by him.
The learned Member further observed that there was companysiderable force in the stand taken by the CBI that this companyplaint has been filed only to demoralize the CBI officers who are zealously investigating.
He bought his own ticket and accompanied the CBI officers to Patna.
Then the houses of the two close relatives of the companyplainant were searched till late night that day on the basis of the information furnished by him.
On companypletion of the searches, the CBI officers stayed in the Coal India Guest House at Patna.
On a search of the said companytractors house, numberhing incriminating was found.
The learned Chairman of NHRC, by his proceeding dated 10.3.2000 treated the petition filed by Shri A.K. Sinha as review petition and having found a prima facie case of illegal detention of the companyplainant by the CBI officials during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994, thought it fit to recall the findings recorded in the proceeding dated 6.11.1998 and to further proceed with the enquiry in the matter.
The plea of the officials was tested broadly on the basis of probabilities and a companyclusion was reached that the officials companycerned were guilty of human rights violation.
The factual account given by the CBI officials is as follows After the search on 25.3.1994 the companyplainant was asked to accompany the DSP, CBI to the SPs office at Ranchi.
NHRC took companynizance of the companyplaint and called for a report from the Director, CBI.
The Commission, therefore, finds numbersubstance in this objection of the numbericee officers and rejects the same.
The CBI officials denied having kept the police personnel in the hospital either on 25.3.1994 or on the second occasion.
On receipt of replies from the companycerned officials of the CBI, the learned Chairman, by his proceeding dated 12.6.2000, rejected the version of the CBI officials, over ruled the objections raised by them on points of law and held that the companyplainant was in de facto custody of the said officials without authority of law during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994 resulting in the violation of his human rights.
Questioning the said order of NHRC, Shri P.K. Panigarhi, the then Inspector, CBI filed a Writ Petition CWJC 2454/2000 under Article 226 in the Patna High Court Ranchi Bench .
Seven officers of CBI were named in the companyplaint who, according to the companyplainant, were directly or indirectly responsible for his illegal detention.
Had Shri Sinha number been in actual custody of the CBI officers, there was numberoccasion for them to have provided him the medical aid and attention and to keep him under companystant surveillance.
While so, Shri N.C. Dhoundial, the then SP, CBI, Ranchi had directly filed Writ Petition c No.
It was made clear that the direction would number in any manner affect the prosecution of Shri Sinha for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI officials left the hospital after his family members came to the hospital to attend on him.
309/2000 R .
He was discharged from the CCI Hospital on 3.4.1994 at 12 numbern and on the request of the IO went to the CBI office.
The Court also directed that he should be admitted in CCI Hospital and interrogated there.
The companyplainant was requested to attend the CBI office at Ranchi at 8.30 a.m. Accordingly, he came to the CBI office and in the companyrse of questioning he disclosed that one more brief case with important documents was kept with another companytractor.
This Court directed issuance of numberice on 15.1.2001.
admitted by him, it was decided to arrest and interrogate him in custody.
The provisional bail was companyfirmed later on subject to certain companyditions.
180, 261, 283, 293, 850 877 of 2001 and Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
The Commission directed the Director, CBI to initiate appropriate disciplinary action for the misconduct of the four officials arising out of the illegal detention of the companyplainant Shri A.K. Sinha.
As he did number companyperate with the investigating agency and did number even companye forward to produce the documents relating to investments etc.
The relevant companyment made by the learned Chairman of NHRC to discredit their version is extracted hereunder The Commission has given its anxious companysideration but it is number inclined to accept the above explanation because it is unreal to expect that a wrong doer will make a record of his wrong actions.
14392/2001.
In between he was admitted to hospital on two occasions.
On receipt of the report of the Jail Superintendent, he was remanded to police custody for seven days and there was a further order to release him on provisional bail for one month from 13.4.1994.
Accordingly, Shri N. Jha, Shri Panigrahi and Shri B.N. Singh together with the companyplainant started on the journey to Patna in the evening.
The companyplaint was decided on the basis of averments in the review petition and the replies submitted by the officials companycerned.
Hence, the officials along with the companyplainant took a bus from Patna on the night of March 27th and reached Ranchi in the early morning hours of March 28th.
Accordingly, he was taken to that hospital but the doctor companycerned was number available.
42 of 2001 filed by N.C. Dhoundial.
The Commission was number prepared to accept the version of the CBI officials.
Assailing this order, the companyplainant A.K. Sinha filed SLP c Nos.
On search of the house of Shri Ranjan Pandey at Patna, the brief case companyld number be found.
That is why he was arrested on 3.4.1994 and produced before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer to remand him to police custody.
Though it is number elaborated, the Commission probably meant that he was being watched while he was in hospital.
It is to be numbered that the Commission did number afford personal hearing to the officials who were put on numberice number any opportunity of adducing evidence was afforded.
Accordingly, show cause numberices were issued to four CBI officials namely, Shri N.C. Dhoundial, Shri Narayan Jha, Shri P.K. Panigrahi and Shri B.N. Singh as to why appropriate recommendation should number be made to the Competent Authority for initiating disciplinary action and such other action as may be found expedient.
On discharge from CCI Hospital at Ranchi on 3.4.1994, the petitioner was arrested with a view to interrogate him in custody and produced before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer to remand him to policy custody for 10 days.
On 27.3.1994, the flight to Ranchi was cancelled and there was some uncertainty in the time schedule of the trains brought for Ranchi on account of Holi festival the next day.
With Transfer Petition Civil Nos.
On 1.4.1994, even while the companyplainant was in hospital, he came to the CBI office with two brief cases said to have been kept with the two companytractors.
During interrogation, the companyplainant disclosed that he kept certain papers, pass books and keys of lockers in a brief case handed over to one Ranjan Pandey, a companytractor of his department at Patna.
They relied on the entries in the case diary in support of their companytention that he was number arrested till 3.4.1994.
8220, 11182, 11186 14392 of 2001.
Regarding the steps taken by them for providing medical attendance to the companyplainant on the first day i.e. 25.3.1994, the stand of CBI officials has been that it was done on humanitarian companysiderations, but number because he was in their custody.
It was further ordered that the Writ Applications shall be heard after the disposal of LPA.
The companyplainant without participating in further interrogation went back to the CCI Hospital.
Firstly, it was held that by virtue of Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the power of review companyferred on the civil companyrt was available to the Commission.
The SLPs, TPs and the Writ Petition have been grouped together and posted for final disposal.
While returning to the CBI office, the petitioner again reported that he was number feeling well and requested that his father in law be informed.
The three legal objections raised by the CBI officials were over ruled by the Commission.
He alleged that a false case was registered against him for extraneous reasons on account of the antagonistic attitude of the S.P. Mr. Dhoundial, towards him.
Absence of such record in the case diaries prepared by a numbericee cannot be relied on to disprove the otherwise established fact of the illegal detention of Shri A.K. Sinha during the aforesaid period.
11182/2001 and 11186/2001.
His father in law got him admitted in the hospital and also deposited money for treatment.
The ground of transfer is that similar issues are involved for adjudication in the LPA Writ Petitions pending in the High Court and the Writ Petition pending in this Court.
Accordingly, his father in law came to the CBI office and both of them left for CCI Hospital.
He volunteered to accompany the CBI officials to Patna with a view to assist them in the investigation.
Thus the initiative taken by the CBI officers in joining him in the hospital when he companyplained of chest pain and the factum of companyplainant accompanying the CBI officials to Patna and companying back with them were relied upon by the Commission to companye to the companyclusion that the companyplainant was in the actual custody of CBI officers.
As the earlier order was number a decision on merits but merely an order abstaining from further enquiry the Commission felt that there was numberbar to reconsider the entire issue in the interest of justice.
Those brief cases were seized in the presence of witnesses in the CBI office.
On the morning of 26.3.1994, he was discharged from the hospital after certain tests including ECG were companyducted.
It may be numbered that before recording its findings and giving directions as above, the Commission did number afford personal hearing or the opportunity to adduce evidence to the writ petitioner and other officials.
It was also observed that the companyplainant never companyplained to the Court that he was being ill treated by the CBI officers.
However, certain papers were seized from his residence.
Thereafter, a bunch of transfer petitions, three by A.K. Sinha and three by NHRC came to be filed in this Court with a prayer to transfer the LPA and Writ Petitions to the file of this Court and to hear the same along with WP C No.
Against this order in the Writ Petition Shri Panigrahi filed an appealLPA No.
Hence, on the request of the companyplainant, he was taken to Central Coalfield Hospital at Ranchi and was admitted in the Hospital.
The companyplainant then expressed his preparedness to go to Patna by air.
The companyplainant then filed a petition on 21.9.1999 pointing out certain facts which according to him missed the attention of the NHRC while taking the decision recorded on 6.11.1998.
He also alleged harassment and torture by the CBI officials including Mr. N.C. Dhoundial, P., CBI Petitioner in WP C 42/2001 .
The CBI, after obtaining sanction, filed a charge sheet on 18.8.1998 under Sections 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.
While ordering numberice to NHRC, status quo with respect to the appellant was directed to be maintained.
Venkatarama Reddi, J. A search was companyducted by the officials of CBI on 25.03.1994 at the residential house of Shri Ashok Kumar Sinhaan officer of the Telecom Department hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant at Ranchi.
Proceedings to this effect were drawn up on 6.11.1998.
Questioning this interim order passed pending the LPA, the companyplainant Shri A.K. Sinha filed SLP C No.
The petitioner volunteered to stay with them that night on the ostensible ground that he felt embarrassed to stay with his relatives in the aftermath of the raids.
The learned Single Judge, following the interim order passed in LPA, granted an order of status quo in regard to those writ petitioners also.
On companysideration of the report, the learned Member of NHRC found that there was numbersubstance in the companyplaint and that numberaction was called for.
The companyplainant alleged that the action of the CBI in causing his unlawful detention during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994 and the harsh treatment meted out to him aggravated his disease of cancer which was detected later and a major surgery had to be performed at Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay to save his life.
