Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8406 of 2012)

Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki …

Appellant

VERSUS

State of Gujarat & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8292 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1.This special leave petition impugns the judgment and

order dated 25

th

September, 2012 passed by the

Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal

Application No.1925 of 2010. By the aforesaid

judgment, the High Court has directed that the

investigation into the death of Amit Jethwa

1

Page 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Jethwa’), a Right to

Information activist be investigated by the CBI

authorities and further directing that the proceedings

pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the

Gujarat Police shall remain stayed.

2.The facts leading to the filing of the special leave

petition out of which the present criminal appeal

arises are as under:

Jethwa had filed a Public Interest Litigation, SCA

No.7690 of 2010, against the State of Gujarat and others

with the following prayer:

“The appellant therefore prays that your

Lordship may be pleased to:

a.Admit this petition.

b.Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the

nature of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ order or direction directing

the respondents to stop illegal mining within

5 kms radius from boundary of Gir

2

Page 3 Sanctuary.”

3.In the aforesaid writ petition, Jethwa had given details

of various activities of certain firms and individuals

who were indulging in illegal mining and destroying

the biodiversity of natural habitat of Gir forest in

Gujarat. This, according to Jethwa, was having an

adverse effect on the natural habitat of the Asiatic

Lions. He was particularly concerned with illegal

mining within 5 kms radius from the boundary of Gir

Sanctuary Area. More than 50 mines in the names of

different persons were mentioned in the writ petition

wherein illegal mining was alleged. Enquiry into the

allegations made by Jethwa was in progress in the

aforesaid writ petition, when he was brutally

murdered.

4.Jethwa was the President of the Gir Nature Youth Club

at Khamba, Gujarat. He had been active in fighting

against encroachment of forests and poaching. He

was also instrumental in the successful prosecution

3

Page 4 of the actor Salman Khan for shooting an endangered

Chinkara deer. He had also taken up cudgels against

the actor Aamir Khan when a deer was used in a

scene in the movie Lagaan. Apart from this, Jethwa

rigorously campaigned against corruption among

officers of the Indian Forest Service and opposed the

mala fide application of Article 356 of the

Constitution of India. In 2007, he had drawn attention

to the mysterious death of lions

in the Gir Forest, including three that were shot

within a few hundred meters of the Babariya forest

guard outpost. Jethwa had claimed that “such a thing

cannot be possible without support of some forest

officials”. On that basis, he had sought suspension of

a particular IFS Officer. The incident ultimately led to

the uncovering of a large lion poaching gang. He

later campaigned against shifting of lions to the Kuno

Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh. According to

him, his efforts were often blocked by forest officials

by charging him with offences such as photographing

4

Page 5 a dead lion and trespassing. In 2007, Jethwa

contested the State Assembly elections against the

appellant herein, but lost. In 2008, Jethwa was very

actively involved in spreading awareness about

effectiveness of the Right to Information Act for

addressing grievances, and conducted workshops on

the procedure to file requests under RTI, to prevent

corrupt practices and other mal-administration. In

2010, Jethwa had filed a Public Interest Litigation

(writ petition) questioning the inaction of State

Government over the appointment of Lokayukta. The

High Court directed the Government to appoint

Lokayukta. He had also spearheaded the campaign

against rising case pendency in the Gujarat

Information Commission due to lack of

commissioners. It was on his petition that the High

Court gave direction to the State Government to

complete the appointments within a stipulated time.

He again came to the rescue of RTI applicants by

filing a writ petition in the High Court and made the

5

Page 6 Government accept Indian Postal Order as one of the

modes of payment to deposit fees while filing the

Right to Information applications.

5.We have narrated these facts just to indicate that

Jethwa was a well known social activist interested in

the protection of environment, generally and the

biodiversity of Gir Forest, in particular. This,

according to him, was urgently needed to protect the

Asiatic Lions, apart from usual environmental issues.

6.During the pendency of the public interest litigation

filed by Jethwa, the name of the appellant and his

nephew emerged as the powers behind the illegal

mining mafia. Therefore, by order dated 6

th

July,

2010, the appellant and his nephew Pratap Bhai

Solanki were impleaded by the High Court as

respondents. The order dated 6

th

July, 2010 was

served on the appellant on 19

th

July, 2010.

7.It is the allegation of the father of Jethwa (hereinafter

6

Page 7 referred to as ‘Respondent No.6’) that the appellant

was so incensed on being made a party in the Public

Interest Litigation filed by Jethwa and the information

that had surfaced during the course of hearing of

that writ petition that he contracted/conspired with

some unknown persons to eliminate Jethwa. In

pursuance of this conspiracy, Jethwa was shot dead

on the very next day, i.e. 20

th

July, 2010.

8.According to the appellant, on the same date, i.e

20

th

July, 2010, the electronic media began

broadcasting allegations of the Respondent No. 6

and some other interested parties that the appellant

was behind the killing of Jethwa. Incidentally, it must

be noticed at this stage that according to the version

of Respondent No.6, the murder took place outside

the Gujarat High Court whilst Jethwa was leaving the

chambers of his lawyer at 8.30 at night. In fact, the

Press Statement was given on 21

st

July, 2010 by

Dhirsinh Barad, a rival Congress MLA that the

appellant might be involved in the murder.

7

Page 8 Subsequently, when the statement of this MLA was

recorded in the High Court on 26

th

February, 2012,

wherein he has stated that on 20

th

July,

2010 he had communicated to Shri B.M.Mangukia,

Advocate who incidentally was also a Secretary of

Gujarat Congress, that as per his belief the appellant

was involved in the murder of Jethwa. The

investigation was conducted in accordance with the

procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure

Code.

9.It appears that the Respondent No 6 was not satisfied

and he filed Special Criminal Application No.1925 of

2010 before the High Court. In this petition,

Respondent No.6 sought transfer of the investigation

in connection with FIR No. I-CR No.163/2010 dated

20

th

July, 2010 registered at Sola Police Station for

commission of offences punishable under Sections

302, 114 of IPC read with Section 25(1) of Arms Act,

to an independent investigating agency, preferably

8

Page 9 CBI or Special Investigation Team comprising IPS

Officers from other State cadre as well. On 19

th

October, 2011, the Gujarat High Court passed the

interim order directing further investigation to be

conducted by the State of Gujarat under the

supervision of Special Commissioner of Police Crime

Branch (of the rank of Additional Director General of

Police) and to submit a final report of investigation

by 28

th

November, 2011. In passing the aforesaid

order, it is pointed out by the appellant herein that,

no adverse remarks with any pre-drawn conclusions

were made against him.

10.In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the investigation

was handed over, on 11

th

November, 2011, to

another officer, Shri Vatsa, Superintendent of Police.

The final report was submitted on 16

th

March, 2012

under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It was pointed out by

the appellant that nothing beyond mere suspicion

had come on the record against the appellant so as

9

Page 10 to make him accused of any conspiracy to

assassinate the deceased Jethwa. On 19

th

March,

2012, the final report of further investigation was

filed before the High Court on behalf of the State

Government. The appellant claims that in spite of

extensive investigation, no circumstantial evidence

pointing out any involvement of the appellant was

gathered, despite the grave suspicion of the relatives

of Jethwa and certain political rivals. However, due to

the pressure exerted by the relatives of the

deceased and certain political rivals, a third charge-

sheet was filed in the FIR.

11.In the order impugned before us, the High Court upon

consideration of the entire matter has come to the

conclusion that investigation conducted by the

Gujarat Police authority is not free from doubt and

that to instill confidence in the public, it would be

appropriate to transfer the investigation to CBI.

12. The present SLP was filed in this Court on 8

th

October, 2012. Notice was issued in the SLP on 15

th

10

Page 11 October, 2012. The investigation by the CBI was not

stayed. The State of Gujarat had filed SLP (Crl.)

NO.8292 of 2012 also challenging the transfer of the

investigation to CBI. This SLP was filed on 15

th

October, 2012. We may also notice here that

Narendra Modi, who was then holding the portfolio of

Home Ministry in Gujarat as well as being the Chief

Minister, was also impleaded as appellant No.2 in SLP

(Crl.) 8292 of 2012. However, subsequently, he was

deleted from the array of parties, by order of this

Court dated 9

th

November, 2012.

13.Leave granted.

14.Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant after making extensive references to the

relevant parts of the impugned judgment has

submitted that the High Court has made

unwarranted remarks against the appellant which

are bound to gravely prejudice his case at the trial.

11

Page 12 These remarks have been made in the absence of

the appellant. The High Court did not make him a

party; and has given an ex-parte judgment against

the appellant. It is per se illegal and, therefore,

deserves to be set aside. He submits that the matter

has to be remanded back to the High Court with the

direction that the appellant be made a party in Writ

Petition SCA No.1925 of 2010. Thereafter the writ

petition be re-heard and decided on merits in

accordance with law.

15.Mr. Rohatgi then submitted that the appellant had

been summoned to appear as a witness before the

CBI. Apprehending that the appellant will be arrested

as soon as he appears before the CBI in response to

the summons, Criminal Misc.

Petition No.22987 of 2013 was filed by him seeking

direction from this Court that the appellant will not

be arrested in case he appears before the CBI. The

actual prayer made in the Application was that this

12

Page 13 Court be pleased to “grant stay of any coercive

action against the appellant prejudicing his life and

personal liberty, pursuant to the impugned ex part

judgment dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Gujarat

High Court in SCA 1925 of 2010 wherein CBI was

inter alia directed to investigate and file report within

6 months.” This Court did not accept the prayer

made by the appellant. As apprehended by the

appellant, he was immediately arrested, when he

appeared before the CBI, in response to the

summons to join the investigation.

16. This action of the CBI, according to Mr. Rohatgi, was

wholly illegal. The appellant had been cooperating

with the investigation throughout. The arrest of the

appellant was politically motivated.

17. On 17

th

April, 2013, Status Report of the investigation

by the CBI was produced before this Court by

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor

General. After perusal of the report, the court

13

Page 14 directed the same to be re-sealed and kept with the

record. The matter was adjourned from time to time

to enable the CBI to complete the investigation.

Since his arrest, the appellant was initially remanded

to police custody. Subsequently, however, he was

placed in judicial custody. The appellant continues to

be in jail till date. On 19

th

November, 2013 when the

matter came up for further consideration, a

submission was made on behalf of the CBI that

“although the appellant is now not required for

custodial interrogation, judicial custody needs to be

continued as the investigation is still not complete.”

A request was made that the matter be adjourned for

at least six weeks to enable the CBI to complete the

investigation in relation to the appellant. Since the

appellant had been in custody for a long time, it was

prayed that he should be released from custody. It

was pointed out that the appellant was required to

perform his official duties as an elected member of

the Parliament. However, the request of the

14

Page 15 appellant was rejected and CBI was granted some

more time to complete the investigation. It was

made clear by this Court that the aforesaid direction

would not preclude the CBI to seek custodial

interrogation of the appellant, as and when required.

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to

time.

18.Mr. Rohatgi then submitted that in breach of the

directions issued by this Court on 17

th

April, 2013,

the CBI has filed a supplementary charge sheet in

January, 2014, before the ACJM, Ahmedabad, instead

of placing the report before this Court in a sealed

cover. Relying on these facts, Mr. Rohatgi has

submitted that the action of the CBI is in

disobedience of this order of this Court, and

therefore, the charge sheet itself needs to be set

aside, as it has been filed without the permission of

this Court.

19.Mr. Rohatgi then submitted that in case the aforesaid

15

Page 16 submissions are not accepted, the prejudicial

remarks made against the appellant need to be

expunged as the remarks have been made without

making him a party. He submitted that the remarks

have damned the appellant as the main conspirator.

Such adverse remarks, according to Mr.

Rohatgi, can have no legal effect, having been made

in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice i.e. the rule

of audi alteram Partem. He pointed out that the

appellant has also been referred to as accused No.1,

without any justification.

20.Mr. Rohatgi emphasized that the judgment is replete

with prejudicial remarks. He has been described as a

person with criminal antecedents. He is stated to

have been involved and named in several police

complaints and FIRs for serious offences, including

attempt to murder and murder. The High Court has

also observed that many offences have been

committed at the behest of the appellant. But almost

all such complaints and FIRs have terminated in

16

Page 17 summary reports. A long list of the cases in which

the appellant has been found to be not involved was

placed before the High Court. The High Court has

further observed that the crusade of the deceased

Jethwa against the illegal empire of the appellant

herein was the cause for the murder of Jethwa. The

High Court also observed that the appellant herein

was managing the entire

investigation. The police did not even record the

statements of numerous persons as the statements

would have pointed an accusing finger at the

appellant for being responsible for the death of

Jethwa. Relying on the observations recorded in the

judgment, Mr. Rohatgi submits that unless the same

are expunged the appellant cannot possibly expect a

fair trial.

21.Mr. Rohatgi has relied on the following judgments in

support of his submission.

17

Page 18 Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala

1

; D.

Venkatasubramaniam Vs. M. K. Mohan

Krishnamachari

2

; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder

Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.

3

; Ms. Mayawati Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

4

; Union of India Vs.

W.N.Chadha

5

.

22.Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that the

appellant has been firstly in police custody and

subsequently in judicial custody since the arrest on

5

th

November, 2013 till now. The appellant is a sitting

Member of the Parliament and has to perform his

duties as an MP in the Parliament, as well as his

Constituency. The appellant has been cooperating

with the investigation throughout. There is no

likelihood of the appellant absconding as he has

deep roots in society, particularly in the area that is

represented by him as an MP in the Parliament.

1

(2008) 3 SCC 542

2

(2009) 10 SCC 488

3

2012 Criminal Law Journal 1001

4

(2012) 8 SCC 106

5

(1993) Supp.4 SCC 260

18

Page 19 Learned senior counsel further submitted that

although CBI has filed the charge sheet, copies of all

the statements of witnesses have not been made

available to the appellant, on the ground that it is a

very sensitive matter. According to Mr. Rohatgi, the

CBI has wrongly relied on Section 173(6) of the

Cr.P.C. He reiterated that the arrest of the appellant

was totally illegal as it is in disobedience of the

orders passed by this Court on 15

th

March, 2013; 10

th

April, 2013 and 17

th

April, 2013. He has also

reiterated the submission that the appellant has

been arrested maliciously as a result of political

vendetta. Mr. Rohatgi also submitted that

apprehending the arrest, the appellant had moved

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 22987 of 2013, but this

Court had declined to give any directions.

23.He also pointed out that the appellant has been

elected as Member of Legislative Assembly, Gujarat

for three terms. Thereafter, the appellant has

19

Page 20 successfully contested the Parliamentary election as

an official candidate of the BJP. Therefore, as it was

found by his political rivals that the appellant cannot

be destabilized by a popular vote, he is being

dragged into this case to cause maximum damage to

his image and political career. Mr. Rohatgi further

pointed out that the timing of issuance of summons

by the CBI coincided not only with the Diwali festival

but, also with the ensuing Parliamentary election, as

well as the assembly election which had been

declared in five States. He submitted that the

appellant, therefore, reasonably apprehends that the

opposition is trying to maliciously gain maximum

political mileage, by getting him involved in the

murder case.

24.Learned senior counsel further pointed out that on the

one hand, the family of the appellant was grieving

due to the death of his elder brother on 8

th

October,

2013; on the other hand, the letter of the CBI dated

20

Page 21 25

th

October, 2013 was handed over to his younger

brother asking the appellant to remain present on

29

th

October, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. before

the Investigating Officer. The family members of the

appellant on the date of the filing of the application,

i.e. 28

th

October, 2013, were occupied with the after-

death ceremonies of his deceased brother. At the

same time, immediately with the issuance of the

summons by the CBI, adverse media trial and

propaganda had started in various news channels

and the Newspapers against the appellant. It is also

pointed out by Mr. Rohatgi that the CBI has

commenced the investigation in October 2012 and

since then the appellant has continued to be in

active public life. He has also attended Parliament as

a Member of the Parliament in the 13

th

, 14

th

and 15

th

Session of the Lok Sabha held on 4

th

September,

2013, 5

th

September, 2013 and 6

th

September, 2013.

The appellant has also participated in various public

welfare functions during this period. In spite of the

21

Page 22 aforesaid, the appellant has been illegally deprived

of his personal liberty and fundamental rights under

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He

reiterated that the appellant had made a prayer

in Crl. M.P. No. 22987 of 2013 that no coercive steps

be taken against the appellant. Since the prayer

made by the appellant was not accepted, the CBI

used this as an excuse to arrest the appellant. Given

the entire fact situation as narrated above and the

fact that the appellant has not been given copies of

all the statements collected by the CBI, there is little

likelihood of the appellant tampering with the

evidence. Since the CBI has submitted the charge

sheet, the investigation is complete. Therefore, it

would be in the interest of justice that the appellant

is now released on bail, during the pendency of the

trial.

25. Mr. J.S. Attri, learned senior counsel, appearing for

the CBI has submitted that the status report has

22

Page 23 been submitted to this Court. Upon completion of the

investigation, the charge sheet has also been

submitted in court. It is further submitted that there

is no violation of the orders dated 15

th

March, 2013,

10

th

April, 2013 and the order dated 17

th

April, 2013,

which directed that the report produced by the

Additional Solicitor General be sealed and kept with

the record. There is no direction to the CBI not to file

the charge sheet without leave of the court.

26. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal appearing for respondent No.6

has submitted that the question as to whether the

appellant was required to be heard before the

investigation is transferred to the CBI is no longer res

integra. She submitted that the State hierarchy was

actively involved in influencing the investigation by the

State Police, which is evident from the fact that Mr.

Narendera Modi was Appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.

_______@ SLP (Crl.) No.8292 of 2012. He was subsequently

deleted from the array of parties by an order of this Court.

23

Page 24 His removal from the array of parties makes no difference.

Ms. Jaiswal has submitted that in fact the appellant has no

locus standi to file the present appeal. At the most,

according to her, he is a proposed accused or a suspect.

She submits that it is a settled proposition of law and

criminal jurisprudence that an accused has no right to be

heard at the stage of investigation. The appellant in the

present case is a potential suspect. Therefore, he has no

locus standi to challenge the judgment of the High Court,

transferring the investigation to the CBI in exercise of its

powers under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. She submits

that the High Court has come to a prima facie conclusion

that the original investigation and the further investigation

are far from satisfactory. Both investigations lacked

transparency and, therefore, the Court has rightly

concluded that the investigation conducted by the State

Police did not inspire confidence. She submits that the

High Court has committed no error in not making the

appellant a party in the writ petition filed by respondent

No.6 seeking transfer of the investigation from the State

24

Page 25 Police and the Special Commissioner, Crime Detection

Branch, Ahmedabad to the CBI. The rule of audi alteram

partem would not be applicable at that stage. She submits

that the investigation has to be conducted in accordance

with Sections 154 to 176 of the Cr.P.C., wherein no

provision is made for the applicability of the concept of

audi alteram partem. In other words, at no stage till the

charge sheet is submitted the suspect or proposed

accused can claim any constitutional or legal right to be

heard. In support of her submissions, she relied on the

judgment of this Court in W. N. Chadha (supra), Central

Bureau of Investigation & Anr . Vs. Rajesh Gandhi &

Anr.

6

, Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha

Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of A.P. &

Ors.

7

, Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Anr.

8

She also relies on the judgment in the case of

Divine Retreat (supra).

27. She further submitted that even though the High

6

(1996) 11 SCC 253

7

(1999) 5 SCC 740

8

(2009) 6 SCC 65

25

Page 26 Court has given elaborate details in support of the

conclusions to transfer the investigation to CBI, it does not

mean that the remarks were not necessary for coming to

such a conclusion. She submits that the facts in this case

were glaring. Jethwa has relentlessly campaigned against

illegal mining within the prohibited 5 km zone of the Gir

Forest Sanctuary. This sanctuary is the only habitat of the

Asiatic Lions. Jethwa had managed to uncover a deep

rooted conspiracy to continue illegal mining in the

prohibited zones. He was in possession of evidence which

would have directly linked the appellant to the illegal

mining. The appellant and his nephew were impleaded as

parties in the public interest litigation, SCA No.7690 of

2010 by order dated 6

th

July, 2010. The aforesaid order

was served on the appellant on 19

th

July, 2010. Within 24

hours Jethwa was killed whilst he was coming out of the

chamber of his lawyer.

28. She further pointed out that a perusal of the judgment

of the High Court would show that the investigation

26

Page 27 conducted by the State Police and subsequent further

investigation was wholly tainted and one sided. Therefore,

the High Court had rightly transferred the case to the CBI.

She further submitted that the remarks made by the High

Court were wholly justified for coming to the conclusion

that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI to

inspire confidence.

29. She next submitted that the investigation has been

completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The

appellant will have full opportunity to defend himself at

the trial. She submitted that the present appeal deserves

to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

30. Lastly, she submitted that although the appellant is

an MP he is involved in several criminal cases. His

influence is so pervasive that he has been declared to be

innocent in all the other criminal cases, excepting one. It

is only in the present case that he is sought to be put on

trial. She has submitted that even the nephew of the

appellant Shiva Solanki was only arrested on 7

th

27

Page 28 September, 2010; he had been absconding for 45 days

whilst the investigation was in progress. The further

investigation conducted by Sh. Vatsa, IPS, Superintendent

of Police has been found to be tainted by the Court. The

High Court found that the facts stated by Sh. Vatsa in the

final report did not inspire confidence as it did not even

point out the close proximity of Shiva Solanki and the

appellant. These reports also point out the interaction

between the uncle and nephew before and after the

crime. In fact, Vatsa never applied for custodial

interrogation of the appellant. She further submitted that

the High Court noticed that the police man who is the first

informant can not be an eye witness to the incident.

Surprisingly, the FIR was not recorded at the instance of

any member of his family. She submits that the High

Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the initial

and further investigations suffered from so many lapses

and lacunae that it could not possibly inspire confidence.

31. Opposing the prayer for bail, Ms. Jaiswal submitted

28

Page 29 that the appellant is a very powerful person, not only

because he is an MP, but because he is a kingpin in the

criminal mafia operating within the Gir Sanctuary which is

meant for protection of the Asiatic Lions, apart from many

other rare species of animal life as well as flora and fauna.

In case, he is allowed out on bail the appellant is most

likely to put pressure on the prosecution witnesses and

weaken the case of the prosecution. She submits that the

family of the deceased is entitled to the satisfaction that

the brazen murder of the deceased was not only fairly

investigated, but also a fair trial was conducted. She

further submitted that earlier application of the bail of the

appellant having been dismissed by the trial court no

special treatment could be given to the appellant. His

application for bail in this Court is not maintainable.

32. Mr. Rohatgi in reply has submitted that Narendra

Modi had been made appellant No.2 by mistake. The

mistake was corrected and his name was deleted from the

array of parties on 9.11.2012 by the order of this Court.

29

Page 30 His name is unnecessarily being mentioned in these

proceedings.

33. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

34. Before we examine the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to

notice the various authorities cited by them. In Divine

Retreat Centre (supra), this Court held that considering

the question as to whether even the High Court can set

the law in motion against the named and unnamed

individuals based on the information received by it

without recording the reasons that the information

received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a

cognizable offence. This Court observed that “the High

Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot

direct investigation by constituting a special investigating

team on the strength of anonymous petitions. The High

Court cannot be converted into station houses.” The

30

Page 31 observations made in para 51, on which heavy reliance

has been placed by Mr. Rohatgi, show that the High Court

had sought to turn the Divine Retreat Centre into an

accused on the basis of an anonymous complaint in

exercise of its power under Section 482. Keeping in view

the peculiar facts of that case, it is observed as follows :

“54. Here is a case where no information has

been given to the police by any informant

alleging commission of any cognizable

offence by the appellant and the persons

associated with the appellant institution. It is

a peculiar case of its own kind where an

anonymous petition is sent directly in the

name of a learned Judge of the Kerala High

Court, which was suo motu taken up as a

proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.

The High Court ought not to have entertained

such a petition for taking the same on file

under Section 482 of the Code.”

35. It was for the aforesaid reason that this Court

observed as follows:

“51. The order directing the investigation on

the basis of such vague and indefinite

allegations undoubtedly is in the teeth of

principles of natural justice. It was, however,

submitted that the accused gets a right of

hearing only after submission of the charge-

sheet, before a charge is framed or the

accused is discharged vide Sections 227 and

31

Page 32 228 and 239 and 240 CrPC. The appellant is

not an accused and, therefore, it was not

entitled for any notice from the High Court

before passing of the impugned order. We

are concerned with the question as to

whether the High Court could have passed a

judicial order directing investigation against

the appellant and its activities without

providing an opportunity of being heard to it.

The case on hand is a case where the

criminal law is directed to be set in motion on

the basis of the allegations made in

anonymous petition filed in the High Court.

No judicial order can ever be passed by any

court without providing a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the person

likely to be affected by such order and

particularly when such order results in drastic

consequences of affecting one’s own

reputation. In our view, the impugned order

of the High Court directing enquiry and

investigation into allegations in respect of

which not even any complaint/information

has been lodged with the police is violative of

principles of natural justice.”

36. These observations would not be applicable in the

facts of this case. The criminal law has not been set in

motion on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The

investigation has been transferred to the CBI, in a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by none other

than the father of the victim who suspects that his son

32

Page 33 was murdered at the instance of the appellant herein. The

facts have been elaborately narrated by the High Court as

well as by us. It is apparent that the fact situation in

Divine Retreat Centre is wholly distinguishable from the

present case.

37. In D.Venkatasubramaniam (supra) , again this

Court was concerned with the erroneous exercise of its

inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by the High

Court. This Court reiterated the observations made in

Divine Retreat Centre (supra) . It was inter alia

observed as follows :

“34. The High Court in the present case,

without realising the consequences, issued

directions in a casual and mechanical manner

without hearing the appellants. The

impugned order is a nullity and liable to be

set aside only on that score.

35. We are not impressed by the submission

made by the learned counsel for the

respondent that the High Court did not issue

any directions but merely disposed of the

petition with the observations reminding the

police of its duty. The question that arises for

consideration is whether there was any

occasion or necessity to make those

33

Page 34 “observations” even if they are to be

considered to be observations and not any

directions. It is not even remotely suggested

that there was any deliberate inaction or

failure in the matter of discharge of duties by

the police. There was no allegation of any

subversion of processes of law facilitating the

accused to go scot-free nor is there any

finding as such recorded by the High Court in

its order.”

38. From the above, it becomes apparent that the High

Court had passed the order in a mechanical manner.

Further more, it was not even remotely suggested that

there was any deliberate inaction or failure in the matter

of discharge of duties by the police. In the present case,

the appellant before the High Court was none other than

the father of the deceased. It was a cry for justice made

by a person whose son has been brazenly murdered.

Failure of the High Court to take notice on such a plea, in

our opinion, would have resulted in injustice to the father

of the victim who was only seeking a fair and impartial

investigation into the circumstances leading to the murder

of his son. The petition has been filed by the father

seeking redressal of the grievance under Articles 14, 21

34

Page 35 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The father of the

deceased had filed the petition on the grounds that the

State is under the obligation to ensure the rule of law. It

was stated that the rule of law can be maintained only by

fair, impartial and independent investigation by the law

and order enforcement agency, in every reported

incidents of commission of offence. It was emphatically

stated that the investigation into the murder of Jethwa

was not taking place independently and impartially due to

extra-legal and extraneous considerations. The

Respondent No.6, father of the murdered victim, had

prayed before the High Court that his right to equality

before the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the

Constitution of India was being violated as the appellant

herein was being protected by the investigating agency

because he is a member of Parliament, and he belongs to

the political party that was in power in the State. In the

light of the aforesaid, the ratio of judgment in D.

Venkatasubramanium (supra) , in our opinion, is also

not applicable in the facts of this case.

35

Page 36 39. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) is a very

peculiar case. This Court examined a situation where the

High Court suo motu re-opened the proceedings which

had been closed, and the High Court had become functus-

officio. This Court after noticing the peculiar fact situation,

observed as follows:

“The impugned order dated 5.10.2007

though gives an impression that the High

Court was trying to procure the presence of

the proclaimed offenders but, in fact, it was

to target the police officers, who had

conducted the inquiry against Mr. Justice X.

The order reads that particular persons were

eliminated in a false encounter by the police

and it was to be ascertained as to who were

the police officers responsible for it, so that

they could be brought to justice.”

40. Clearly, therefore, in such circumstances this Court

struck down the directions. This Court also notices that

although the proceedings before the High Court were

ostensibly to procure the presence of the proclaimed

offenders but in essence it was an enquiry to ascertain as

to who were the police officers responsible for certain

36

Page 37 false encounters. It is well settled that the Court cannot

order a roving enquiry and direct the investigation to be

carried out by the CBI without any basis. This court was

dealing with the cases where the investigators of the

crime were sought to be converted into accused. Such are

not the circumstances in the present case. Thus, the

reliance placed upon Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s

case (supra) is misplaced.

41. In the case of Ms. Mayawati (supra) , the question

raised in the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India was as to whether the FIR registered

against the appellant therein to investigate into the

matter of alleged disproportionate assets of the appellant

and other officers was beyond the scope of the directions

passed by this Court in the order dated 18

th

September,

2003 in M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India. Upon the

examination of the entire situation, it was held by this

Court that the FIR registered against the appellant therein

was beyond the directions issued by this court in

37

Page 38 M.C.Mehta and, therefore, was without authority of law.

42. Undoubtedly, the essence of criminal justice system

is to reach the truth. The underlying principle is that whilst

the guilty must not escape punishment; no innocent

person shall be punished unless the guilt of the

suspect/accused is established in accordance with law. All

suspects/accused are presumed to be innocent till their

guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial

conducted according to the procedure prescribed under

law. Fair, unbiased and transparent investigation is a sine

quo non for protecting the accused. Being dissatisfied with

the manner in which the investigation was being

conducted, the father of the victim filed the petition

seeking an impartial investigation.

43. Now we shall consider the judgments cited by

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal.

44. In W.N.Chadha (supra) , the High Court had

38

Page 39 quashed and set aside the order passed by the Special

Judge, in-charge of CBI matters issuing the order rogatory,

on the application of a named accused in the FIR,

Mr. W.N.Chadha. The High Court held that the order

issuing letter rogatory was passed in breach of principles

of natural justice. In appeal, this Court held as follows :-

“89. Applying the above principle, it may be

held that when the investigating officer is not

deciding any matter except collecting the

materials for ascertaining whether a prima

facie case is made out or not and a full

enquiry in case of filing a report under

Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the

Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the

report, it cannot be said that at that stage

rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an

obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the

accused which the statute does not expressly

recognise. The question is not whether audi

alteram partem is implicit, but whether the

occasion for its attraction exists at all.”

“92. More so, the accused has no right to

have any say as regards the manner and

method of investigation. Save under certain

exceptions under the entire scheme of the

Code, the accused has no participation as a

matter of right during the course of the

investigation of a case instituted on a police

report till the investigation culminates in

filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of

the Code or in a proceeding instituted

otherwise than on a police report till the

39

Page 40 process is issued under Section 204 of the

Code, as the case may be. Even in cases

where cognizance of an offence is taken on a

complaint notwithstanding that the said

offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable

exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the

accused has no right to have participation till

the process is issued. In case the issue of

process is postponed as contemplated under

Section 202 of the Code, the accused may

attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot

participate. There are various judicial

pronouncements to this effect but we feel

that it is not necessary to recapitulate those

decisions. At the same time, we would like to

point out that there are certain provisions

under the Code empowering the Magistrate

to give an opportunity of being heard under

certain specified circumstances.”

“98. If prior notice and an opportunity of

hearing are to be given to an accused in

every criminal case before taking any action

against him, such a procedure would

frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking

of prompt action as law demands, defeat the

ends of justice and make the provisions of

law relating to the investigation lifeless,

absurd and self-defeating. Further, the

scheme of the relevant statutory provisions

relating to the procedure of investigation

does not attract such a course in the absence

of any statutory obligation to the contrary.”

These observations make it abundantly clear that it

would not be necessary to give an opportunity of hearing

40

Page 41 to the proposed accused as a matter of course. The court

cautioned that if prior notice and an opportunity of

hearing have to be given in every criminal case before

taking any action against the accused person, it would

frustrate the entire objective of an effective investigation.

In the present case, the appellant was not even an

accused at the time when the impugned order was passed

by the High Court. Finger of suspicion had been pointed at

the appellant by independent witnesses as well as by the

grieved father of the victim.

45. In Rajesh Gandhi’s case (supra) , this Court again

reiterated the law as follows :

“8. There is no merit in the pleas raised by

the first respondent either. The decision to

investigate or the decision on the agency

which should investigate, does not attract

principles of natural justice. The accused

cannot have a say in who should investigate

the offences he is charged with. We also fail

to see any provision of law for recording

reasons for such a decision…………….There is

no provision in law under which, while

granting consent or extending the powers

and jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the specified State and to

any specified case any reasons are required

to be recorded on the face of the notification.

41

Page 42 The learned Single Judge of the Patna High

Court was clearly in error in holding so. If

investigation by the local police is not

satisfactory, a further investigation is not

precluded. In the present case the material

on record shows that the investigation by the

local police was not satisfactory. In fact

the local police had filed a final report before

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The

report, however, was pending and had not

been accepted when the Central Government

with the consent of the State Government

issued the impugned notification. As a result,

the CBI has been directed to further

investigate the offences registered under the

said FIR with the consent of the State

Government and in accordance with law.

Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC 1973 also,

there is an analogous provision for further

investigation in respect of an offence after a

report under sub-section (2) has been

forwarded to the Magistrate.”

The aforesaid observations would clearly support the

course adopted by the High Court in this matter. We have

earlier noticed that the High Court had initially directed

that the investigation be carried under the supervision of

the Special Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, of the

rank of the Additional Director General of Police. It was

only when the High Court was of the opinion that even

further investigation was not impartial, it was transferred

42

Page 43 to the CBI.

46. Again in Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra) , this

Court observed as follows :

“10. Power of the police to conduct further

investigation, after laying final report, is

recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. Even after the court

took cognizance of any offence on the

strength of the police report first submitted, it

is open to the police to conduct further

investigation. This has been so stated by this

Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi

Admn.)1. The only rider provided by the

aforesaid decision is that it would be

desirable that the police should inform the

court and seek formal permission to make

further investigation.

11. In such a situation the power of the court

to direct the police to conduct further

investigation cannot have any inhibition.

There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest

that the court is obliged to hear the accused

before any such direction is made. Casting of

any such obligation on the court would only

result in encumbering the court with the

burden of searching for all the potential

accused to be afforded with the opportunity

of being heard. As the law does not require it,

we would not burden the Magistrate with

such an obligation.”

These observations also make it clear that there was

no obligation for the High Court to either hear or to make

43

Page 44 the appellant a party to the proceedings before directing

that the investigation be conducted by the CBI.

47. We had earlier noticed that the High Court had come

to the prima facie conclusion that the investigation

conducted by the police was with the motive to give a

clear chit to the appellant, inspite of the statements made

by the independent witnesses as well as the allegations

made by the father of the deceased. The legal position

has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Narender

G. Goel (supra):

“11. It is well settled that the accused has no

right to be heard at the stage of

investigation. The prosecution will however

have to prove its case at the trial when the

accused will have full opportunity to

rebut/question the validity and authenticity of

the prosecution case. In Sri Bhagwan

Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata

Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. this

Court observed: (SCC p. 743, para 11)

“11. … There is nothing in Section

173(8) to suggest that the court is

obliged to hear the accused before

any such direction is made. Casting

of any such obligation on the court

would only result in encumbering

the court with the burden of

44

Page 45 searching for all the potential

accused to be afforded with the

opportunity of being heard.”

12. The accused can certainly avail himself of

an opportunity to cross-examine and/or

otherwise controvert the authenticity,

admissibility or legal significance of material

evidence gathered in the course of further

investigations. Further in light of the views

expressed by the investigating officer in his

affidavit before the High Court, it is apparent

that the investigating authorities would

inevitably have conducted further

investigation with the`` aid of CFS under

Section 173(8) of the Code.

13. We are of the view that what is the

evidentiary value can be tested during the

trial. At this juncture it would not be proper to

interfere in the matter.”

48. Again in the case of Narmada Bai (supra), this

Court after reviewing the entire body of case law

concluded as follows :

“64. The above decisions and the principles

stated therein have been referred to and

followed by this Court in Rubabbuddin

Sheikh1 where also it was held that

considering the fact that the allegations have

been levelled against high-level police

officers, despite the investigation made by

the police authorities of the State of Gujarat,

ordered investigation by CBI. Without

45

Page 46 entering into the allegations levelled by

either of the parties, we are of the view that

it would be prudent and advisable to transfer

the investigation to an independent agency.

It is trite law that the accused persons do not

have a say in the matter of appointment of

an investigation agency. The accused

persons cannot choose as to which

investigation agency must investigate the

alleged offence committed by them.”

49. We may also notice here the observations made by

this Court in Mohd. Anis Vs. Union of India

9

, wherein

this Court held as follows :

“5. … Fair and impartial investigation by an

independent agency, not involved in the

controversy, is the demand of public interest.

If the investigation is by an agency which is

allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility

of the investigation will be doubted and that

will be contrary to the public interest as well

as the interest of justice.” (SCC p. 148, para

5)

“2. … Doubts were expressed

regarding the fairness of the

investigation as it was feared that

as the local police was alleged to

be involved in the encounters, the

investigation by an officer of the

U.P. Cadre may not be impartial.”

(SCC p. 147, para 2)”

9

1994 Supp (1) SCC 145

46

Page 47 50. At this stage, we would like to reiterate the well

known principles on the basis of a previous judgment can

be treated as a precedent. The most important principles

have been culled out by this Court in Bank of India &

Anr. Vs. K.Mohandas & Ors.

10

as follows:

“54. A word about precedents, before we deal

with the aforesaid observations. The classic

statement of Earl of Halsbury, L.C. in Quinn v.

Leathem, is worth recapitulating first: (AC p.

506)

“… before discussing … Allen v. Flood

and what was decided therein, there

are two observations of a general

character which I wish to make, and

one is to repeat what I have very

often said before, that every

judgment must be read as applicable

to the particular facts proved, or

assumed to be proved, since the

generality of the expressions which

may be found there are not intended

to be expositions of the whole law,

but are governed and qualified by the

particular facts of the case in which

such expressions are to be found. The

other is that a case is only an

authority for what it actually decides.

I entirely deny that it can be quoted

for a proposition that may seem to

follow logically from it. Such a mode

of reasoning assumes that the law is

necessarily a logical code, whereas

10

(2009) 5 SCC 313

47

Page 48 every lawyer must acknowledge that

the law is not always logical at all.”

(emphasis supplied)

This Court has in long line of cases followed

the aforesaid statement of law.

55. In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar

Misra9 it was observed: (AIR p. 651, para 13)

“13. … A decision is only an authority

for what it actually decides. What is of

the essence in a decision is its ratio

and not every observation found

therein nor what logically follows from

the various observations made in it.”

56. In the words of Lord Denning:

“Each case depends on its own facts

and a close similarity between one

case and another is not enough

because even a single significant

detail may alter the entire aspect. In

deciding such cases, one should avoid

the temptation to decide cases (as

said by Cardozo) by matching the

colour of one case against the colour

of another. To decide, therefore, on

which side of the line a case falls, the

broad resemblance to another case is

not at all decisive.”

57. It was highlighted by this Court in Ambica

Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat: (SCC p.

221, para 18)

48

Page 49 “18. … The ratio of any decision must

be understood in the background of

the facts of that case. It has been said

long time ago that a case is only an

authority for what it actually decides,

and not what logically follows from

it.”

58. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar

Mill (P) Ltd. this Court held that a little

difference in facts or additional facts may

make a lot of difference in the precedential

value of a decision.

59. This Court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani emphasised that the

courts should not place reliance on decisions

without discussing as to how the factual

situation fits in with the fact situation of the

decision on which reliance is placed. It was

further observed that the judgments of courts

are not to be construed as statutes and the

observations must be read in the context in

which they appear to have been stated. The

Court went on to say that circumstantial

applicability, one additional or different fact

may make a world of difference between

conclusions in two cases.”

51. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we are

constrained to hold that the ratio of the judgment cited by

the appellant would not be applicable in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

49

Page 50 52. We can now proceed to examine the factual situation

in the present case.

53. We are not much impressed by the submissions

made by Mr. Rohtagi that the High Court has

unnecessarily cast aspersions of criminality on the

appellant. In Paragraph 10 of the judgment, the High

Court has observed as follows:-

“All the above circumstances put together

indicated that the investigation was

controlled from the stage of registering

the FIR and only the clues provided by the

accused persons themselves were investigated

to close the investigation by filing Charge-

sheet No.158 of 2010 dated 10.11.2010 and

further investigation had not served any

purpose. Therefore, the investigation with the

lapses and lacunae as also the unusual acts of

omission and commission did not and could

not inspire confidence. It may not be proper

and advisable to further critically examine the

charge-sheet already submitted by the police,

as some of the accused persons are already

arrested and shown as accused persons and

even charge is yet to be framed against them.

The facts and averments discussed in

paragraphs 6 and 7 hereinabove also amply

support the conclusion that the investigation

all throughout was far from fair, impartial,

independent or prompt.”

50

Page 51 54. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court

has relied on the following factors:-

(a)Prima facie, the deceased son of respondent No.6

was an RTI activist and sole appellant in the PIL,

being SCA No. 7690 of 2010, wherein two

persons were, recently before the murder, joined

as respondents and one of them is already

accused of the offence under Sections 302 and

120-B of IPC. The High Court also recorded that

it is nobody’s case that the deceased victim of

the offence was a blackmailer or a busybody. He

was interested in spreading public awareness

about environmental issues and taking legal

remedies for preventing environmental

degradation, particularly in and around the

reserved forest and Gir Sanctuary.

(b)The High Court then notices that according to the

FIR, the deceased was killed at 20.40 hours on

20.7.2010 and the FIR was registered at 22.06

51

Page 52 hours. Although the FIR itself mentioned address

of the deceased and his mobile phone was also

found on the spot, no effort was made to either

inform any member of his family available nearby

or call them to the police station before

registration of the FIR through police personnel.

The High Court notices that these facts would

clearly strengthen the suspicion of respondent

No.6 that the relatives and acquaintances of the

deceased were deliberately prevented from

naming anyone even as a suspected perpetrator

of the crime in the FIR.

(c)Again the High Court, by making a reference to

the FIR, has prima facie concluded that it seems

to have been registered under the advice and

guidance of the higher officers, who were present

at the police station. The High Court also notices

from the affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Mr.

Vatsa that even during the further investigation,

he was required to continuously inform and brief

52

Page 53 Mr. Mohan Jha as his supervisory officer and

Special Police Commissioner, Crime Branch,

Ahmedabad. The High Court, therefore, formed

an opinion that Mr. Mohan Jha continued to guide

and control even the further investigation, which

had been conducted on the directions of the High

Court. The High Court also notices that Mr.

Kundaliya who was in charge of the investigation,

had recorded statements of father, wife,

brothers, mother and friends of the deceased.

These persons had given specific names of the

suspects, but no arrests were made. In fact the

investigation did not appear to have made any

progress. It was only after the order was passed

by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation on

02.08.2010, transferring the investigation that

arrests began to be made. The High Court then

recorded “However, although, name of Mr.DB

was mentioned as the main suspect in at least 8

statements recorded till then and threats

53

Page 54 received by the deceased were also mentioned,

he was neither approached for interrogation nor

any notice was issued under Section 160 of

Cr.P.C.”. The High Court then notices that efforts

were made by the persons, who were arrested, to

make statements to absolve the appellant of

being involved in the conspiracy to kill Jethwa.

From this, the High Court concluded “thus the

progress of investigation clearly indicated that

the investigators were relying more on the

statements of the arrested person than the

statements recorded earlier of the relatives and

acquaintances of the deceased. Even while filing

the charge-sheet, statements dated 22.7.2010

and 28.7.2010 of independent and important

witnesses, such as, learned advocate Mr. Anand

Yagnik and Mr. Kanaksinh Parmar respectively

were not annexed with the charge-sheet”. The

High Court then notices the contents of case

diary in which it is recorded that on 20.08.2010,

54

Page 55 the news about the police being in search of

Shiva Solanki were leaked in advance and spread

through media and telecast, even then he could

not be located in spite of enquiring into various

secret sources and informants.

(d)The High Court also notices that on 16.8.2010,

when the High Court ordered the transfer of the

investigation, one of the main accused persons

namely Bahadursinh D. Vadher, was arrested and

had practically dictated in great detail his motive,

plan, execution and sufficiency of resources for

arranging the elimination of Jethwa, without ever

mentioning the name of Shiva Solanki. His

statements were recorded everyday from 18

th

to

30

th

August, 2010. During the course of custodial

interrogation, on 19

th

August, 2010, he added

that he had decided with Shiva Solanki to kill

Amit Jethwa for which Shiva was to provide the

money. Thereafter, the High Court makes a very

important observation which is as follows:-

55

Page 56 “Although nothing can be treated or held

to be proved at this stage, the sequence of

events and the statements clearly

indicated that even the name of Shiva

Solanki was being introduced in a careful

and planned manner with leakage of

sensitive information for the public

including others involved in the offence”.

This observation clearly shows that all the

observations were tentative, prima facie, to

adjudge only the issues, as to whether the State

Police had conducted a fair and unbiased

investigation. No opinion is recorded, even

prima facie of the guilt or otherwise of the

appellant in the offence of conspiracy to murder

Jethwa. It appears to us that the apprehension

of the appellant that any of the observations

made by the High Court would influence the

trial are without any basis.

56

Page 57 (e)The High Court further notices that when Shiva

Solanki was arrested on 07.09.2010, his

statements with a matching version were

recorded everyday from 07.09.2010 to

20.09.2010 with details of his decision and

understanding with Bahadursinh to kill Amit

Jethwa of his own motive and resources. But not

once these accused persons appeared to have

been asked even one question about the

involvement of the appellant. In fact Shiva is

stated to have clarified that, no one else was

informed about his understanding with

Bahadursinh.

(f)The High Court further notices that statement of

appellant was recorded on 16.9.2010 when he

claimed not only complete innocence but

ignorance about even the activities of the

deceased and the difficulties caused by him. In

fact he urged for independent and deeper probe

of the offence.

57

Page 58 (g)The High Court then records the conclusion that

this line of interrogation substantiates the

submission that the investigating agency was

following the clues offered by the arrested

persons rather than the other independent

information given by the father and witnesses.

Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts,

the High Court concluded that “the statements of

Mr.DB recorded after apparently solving the

mystery of the murder clearly appeared to be an

empty formality at the convenience and

invitation of Mr.DB. A fair, proper and prompt

investigation in case of such a crime, by an

ordinary police officer, would have inspired

immediate custodial interrogation of the prime

suspects; but in the facts of the present case, the

investigating officer practically remained clueless

for first 25 days after the murder and then

suddenly, with first arrest and first statement of

the arrestee on the first day of investigation, the

58

Page 59 case was practically solved”. Here again, the

conclusion of the High Court is in the context of

the impartiality of the investigation. The same

cannot be construed as any definite or even a

prima facie conclusion as to the guilt of the

appellant.

(h)The High Court thereafter notices that the first

person arrested was not named by any witnesses

in any statement recorded till his arrest. The

High Court, therefore, states that it is not clear

“How that first arrestee, not named till then by

any witness or in any statement recorded till his

arrest, was identified as a suspect and arrested

on 16.8.2010 itself after the order to transfer the

investigation, is not clear. By a curious

coincidence, the complainant who dictated the

FIR under supervision of so-many higher officers

and the first arrestee who offered complete

solution to the investigating agency in his first

statement before a special branch of the police,

59

Page 60 both happened to be serving police personnel

serving under the higher officers under whom the

investigation could otherwise hardly make any

headway for 25 days.” The High Court then

notices the following facts “At both important

points of registering and cracking the case, the

common factor also was the same higher officer

Mr. Mohan Jha, then in-charge of the City Crime

Branch. He also supervised the further

investigation as Special Commissioner of Police,

Crime Branch, by virtue of a special order issued

in this regard by the Director General of Police”.

(i)On the basis of the numerous facts narrated in

the judgment, the High Court concluded that

“there was sufficient material to substantiate the

submission that the State police was controlling

the investigation rather than carrying it out in a

fair, impartial and prompt manner.” The High

Court also concluded that the aforesaid facts

would “lend credence to the allegation that the

60

Page 61 accused persons and the prime suspect had such

influence in the higher echelons of police-power,

that the officers of the lower ranks would not

dare to displease them.” These observations

again are general and were clearly necessary to

state and to support the conclusion reached by

the High Court that the investigation conducted

by the State police was unsatisfactory and

biased. Again no further conclusion has been

recorded about the guilt of any of the suspects,

let alone the appellant, in particular.

(j)The High Court thereafter notices the relationship

of the appellant with Shiva Solanki and observed

“The averments made by Mr.R.Vatsa, who

conducted the further investigation, as related in

Para 6 herein, did not inspire confidence insofar

as close proximity of Shiva Solanki and Mr.DB

and their interaction inter se before and after the

crime, even to the extent discovered during the

investigation, would have led an honest

61

Page 62 investigation to conclusions and inferences quite

contrary to those drawn by the officer. He only

made a weak attempt in proving his sincerity by

applying for custodial interrogation of some of

the accused and that attempt was simply

smothered by the opinion of the District

Government Pleader, as aforesaid.”

(k)The High Court further concludes that where no

one appears to be an eye witness to firing on the

deceased, not only the persons alleged to have

assaulted the deceased, but identity of the

persons who would have strong motive for

eliminating the deceased ought to have been

fully or properly investigated. Instead, the

prosecution relied mainly on the persons, who

were already arrested and practically stopped at

them in spite of the order for carrying out further

investigation in light of the averments and

allegations made in the petition.

(l)In our opinion, the High Court has only noticed

62

Page 63 the facts which tend to show that the

investigation had not been conducted impartially

and fairly. Although, the appellant is mentioned

on a number of occasions, no specific conclusion

is reached that the appellant was responsible for

influencing or controlling the investigation. In

fact, the finger is pointed only towards the higher

echelons of the police, who seem to have been

under the influence of the accused persons.

Mention of the appellant as the prime suspect is

not a conclusion reached by the High Court.

Appellant has been referred to as the prime

suspect in all the allegations made in the writ

petitions and the statements of the relatives

including the statement of the father of the

deceased. Therefore, in our opinion, by

recording the gist of the allegations made, the

High Court has not committed any error of

jurisdiction.

(m)Mr. Rohtagi has pointed out that the High Court

63

Page 64 has also recorded that since the appellant and

his nephew were living together in a joint family

and, therefore, must have conspired to kill

Jethwa. The statement recorded by the High

Court is as under:

“It has come on record that Mr.Shiva

Solanki and Mr.DB were living together in a

joint family and no investigator could have

been easily satisfied with the statements

that they did not interact in respect of the

conspiracy to commit a capital crime,

particularly when both of them were

simultaneously joined as respondents in

the PIL.”

This, in our opinion, is not a conclusion that the

appellant and his nephew Shiva Solanki must have

conspired. The submission made by Mr. Rohtagi is not

borne out from the observations quoted above. Similarly,

the conclusion recorded by the High Court that “The

incorrect statements made by Superintendent of Police

64

Page 65 Mr. Vatsa regarding past record of Mr.DB as seen and

discussed earlier in Para 3 herein, clearly indicated an

attempt at somehow shielding the person who was the

prime suspect, according to the statements of the

relatives and associates of the deceased” again only

alludes to the statements of the relatives and witnesses. It

cannot be said to be a conclusion reached by the High

Court, about the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the

conclusion cannot be said to be unwarranted.

55. Ultimately, the High Court records the following

conclusion:

“All the above circumstances put together

indicated that the investigation was

controlled from the stage of registering the

FIR and only the clues provided by the

accused persons themselves were

investigated to close the investigation by

filing charge-sheet No.158 of 2010 dated

10.11.2010 and further investigation had

not served any purpose. Therefore, the

investigation with the lapses and lacunae

as also the unusual acts of omission and

commission did not and could not inspire

confidence. It may not be proper and

advisable to further critically examine the

charge sheet already submitted by the

police, as some of the accused persons are

already arrested and shown as accused

65

Page 66 persons and even chare is yet to be

framed against them. The facts and

averments discussed in paragraph 6 and 7

hereinabove also amply support the

conclusion that the investigation all

throughout was far from fair, impartial

independent or prompt.”

56.This conclusion also only records the reasons which

persuaded the High Court to transfer the investigation to

CBI. No categorical findings are recorded about the

involvement of the appellant in the crime of conspiracy.

In fact, the High Court is well aware that the

observations have been made only for the limited

purpose of reaching an appropriate conclusion as to

whether the investigation had been conducted

impartially. The High Court has itself clarified as follows :

“In the facts and for the reasons discussed

hereinabove, while concluding that the

investigation into murder of the son of the

petitioner was far from fair, independent,

bona fide or prompt, this court refrains from

even remotely suggesting that the

investigating agency should or should not

have taken a particular line of investigation

or apprehended any person, except in

accordance with law. It is clarified that the

observations made herein are only for the

limited purpose of deciding whether further

66

Page 67 investigation was required to be handed over

to CBI, and they shall not be construed as

expression of an opinion on any particular

aspect of the investigation carried out so far.”

57.After recording the aforesaid clarification, it was

noticed that the investigation is being transferred to CBI

to instill confidence of the general public in the

investigation, keeping in mind the seriousness of the

case having far reaching implications.

58.Although we have not expunged any of the adverse

remarks recorded by the High Court, we emphasize that

the trial court should keep in mind that any observations

made by the High Court, which may appear to be

adverse to the Appellant, were confined only to the

determination of the issue as to whether the

investigation is to be transferred to CBI. Undoubtedly,

the trial of the accused will be conducted unaffected and

uninfluenced by any of the so called adverse remarks of

the High Court.

59.For the reasons stated above, we see no merit in

both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.

67

Page 68 Crl. M.P. No. 23723 of 2013 :-

60.We have already noticed the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties on this application,

seeking bail in the main judgment. The petitioner-

appellant was arrested on 5

th

November, 2013, when he

appeared before the CBI in response to the summons.

Since then the petitioner-appellant has been in custody.

The supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the

CBI in the Court of ACJM, Ahmedabad in January, 2014.

After the charge-sheet being filed, obviously, the

petitioner-appellant is no longer required for further

investigation. Mr. Rohatgi has rightly pointed out that

there is no likelihood of the petitioner-appellant

tampering with the evidence as the copies of all the

sensitive statements have not been supplied to the

petitioner-appellant.

61.We are not much impressed by the submission of

Mr. Rohatgi that the petitioner-appellant ought to be

68

Page 69 released on bail simply because he happens to be a

sitting M.P., nor are we much impressed by the fact that

further incarceration of the petitioner-appellant would

prevent him from performing his duties either in the

Parliament or in his constituency. So far as the court is

concerned, the petitioner-appellant is a suspect/accused

in the offence of murder. No special treatment can be

given to the petitioner-appellant simply on the ground

that he is a sitting Member of Parliament. However,

keeping in view the fact that the CBI has submitted the

supplementary charge-sheet and that the trial is likely to

take a long time, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the

petitioner-appellant on bail, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) On his furnishing personal security in the sum of

Rs.5 lacs with two solvent sureties, each of the like

amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) The petitioner-appellant shall appear in Court as and

when directed by the court.

(iii) The petitioner-appellant shall make himself available

69

Page 70 for any further investigation/interrogation by the CBI as

and when required.

(iv) The petitioner-appellant shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to

any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade that person from disclosing such facts to the

court or to the investigating agency or to any police

officer.

(v) The petitioner-appellant shall not leave India without

the previous permission of the trial court.

(vi) In case the petitioner-appellant is in possession of a

passport, the same shall be deposited with the trial court

before being released on bail.

62.The trial court shall be at liberty to add/impose any

further condition(s) as it deems necessary, in addition to

the aforesaid.

63. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

70

Page 71 Crl.M.P.No.22987 of 2013 :

64.This Crl. Misc. Petition was filed by the petitioner on

28

th

October, 2013, seeking stay of any coercive action

against him prejudicing his life and personal liberty,

pursuant to the judgment dated 25

th

September, 2012 of

the Gujarat High Court impugned in the present criminal

appeals. In view of the order passed by us in Crl. Misc.

Petition No.23723 of 2013, this Petition is dismissed as

having become infructuous.

……………………………….J.

[Surinder Singh Nijjar]

………………………………..J.

[A.K.Sikri]

New Delhi;

February 25, 2014.

71