Disposed

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014WP/3423/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging bias in a murder investigation against a senior police officer, the Court, without adjudicating merits, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Crime to examine any material produced by the petitioner regarding the accused's role, ensuring an expeditious inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Commissioner of Crime, Unit No.1, Mumbai to look into material produced by the petitioner against Respondent No.5 and investigate the allegations expeditiously.

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

51.wp.3423.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2014

¶5

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors ..Respondents

¶6

Mr.Sanjiv Sawant a/w Himanshu Kode and Balvendra Singh,for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP, for the Respondent State.

¶8

Police Inspector Santosh Bagwe, Detection Crime Branch-Unit-1 CID, Mumbai-Present.

¶9

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 23, 2014.

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

The Petitioner submits that his father deceased Sunil Kumar Nandpal Lohariya was murdered on 16th February, 2013. So far 14 persons are made accused in the crime registered with Vashi Police Station, which crime was re-registered by the DCP(Crime) Mumbai.

¶12

2 In substance, the grievance of the Petitioner/son of the deceased is

¶13

that, in spite of there being incriminating material against Respondent

¶14

Aswale 1/4

¶15

51.wp.3423.14

¶16

No.5 herein who is occupying highest position in the Police Department, the Investigating Officer is not looking into the material.

¶17

3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had collected material, including CDR, photographs, in support of his allegation that Respondent No.5 herein had maintained constant contact with the accused person. His role in the alleged crime is required to be probed and investigated. The counsel submits that being highly placed Police Officer, the Investigating Officer of the crime is not looking into the grievance of the Petitioner.

¶18

4 The learned APP submits that the Public Interest Litigation No. 6 of 2014 was filed in respect of the subject crime. The PIL was disposed of by an order dated 9^th April, 2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: P. V. Hardas and A. S. Gadkari, JJ) copy of which is placed before us. The learned APP further submits that the said PIL has, now been disposed of yesterday.

¶19

5 The learned APP submits that the statement of the Petitioner was

¶20

recorded by the Special Investigating Team (SIT) during the course of investigation. The SIT was constituted under the order passed by this

¶21

Aswale 2/4

¶22

51.wp.3423.14

¶23

Court in the proceedings of Public Interest Litigation.

¶24

6 The periodical report was submitted by the SIT in the Court. The learned APP has shown statement of the Petitioner and one of the reports dated 28^th June 2014 is shown to us. It is submitted by the learned APP, on instructions, that no incriminating material was placed before the investigating team against the alleged role of Respondent No.5.

¶25

7 It is submitted that the Investigating Officer/team would look into new incriminating material produced by the Petitioner, if any, against any person including Respondent No.5 in respect of the subject crime. The learned APP submits that the Petitioner may produce the said material before the Assistant Commissioner of Crime, Unit No.1, Mumbai.

¶26

8 We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation No.6 of 2014 and other material collected by the SIT. These documents are returned to the learned APP. We have perused the relevant record placed before us by the Petitioner. The learned APP has submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to submit the material before the

¶27

Aswale 3/4

¶28

51.wp.3423.14

¶29

Assistant Commissioner of Crime, Unit No.1, Mumbai in respect of the subject crime. In case, such material is produced, including the documents, submissions, CDR report, photographs etc, the Assistant Commissioner of Crime would look into the material produced and investigate into the allegations made by the Petitioner against Respondent No.5.

¶30

9 In case the Petitioner approaches the Assistant Commissioner of Police with whatever material with him, the concerned officer would expeditiously look into the material and take appropriate decision.

¶31

10 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner against Respondent No.5, on the statement made by the learned APP, we direct the Assistant Commissioner of Crime, Unit No.1, Mumbai to look into the material which, if produced, by the Petitioner before the concerned officer. With these observations and directions, the Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶33

Aswale 4/4

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. Vs Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar and Ors.

Dr. Koustubh Kamlakar Mench Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through Secretary and Ors.

Union of India, through Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Cbec and Ors. Vs Manoj Jain

Mansukh Chhiba, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Ors. Vs Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Bhanabhai Kariabhai, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Anr. Vs Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Shri. Jagu Hari, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel Vs Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.