STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusRAM PRAKASH SINGH & ANR.

                             [2012] 1 ~.C.R. 54

 A                       STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
                                      v.
                    RAM PRAKASH SINGH & ANR.
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2012)
                           JANUARY 10, 2012
 B
               [R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

           Inquiry - Direction by High Court to CBI to enquire into
      the matter - Challenge to - Matter of escape of the criminals
 C from the police custody and the role of various officers posted
      at the District - In a writ petition before the High Court, various
     directions issued from time to time to the State Government
     - Inaction/failure on part of the State Government in the matter
     - Order of High Court asking CBI to hold enquiry into the said
D matter - Appeal by State and Superintendent of Police before
     Supreme Court - Supreme Court stayed the order passed by
     the High Court and directed the Chief Secretary, State to
    appoint the Adf}itional Chief Secretary to conclude the enquiry
    into the matter and submit the report - Pursuant thereto,
E President Board of Revenue was nominated by the Chief
    Secret~ry to hold the enquiry - Held: The direction given by
    the High Court to refer the matter to CBI to hold an enquiry
    into the matter has lost its relevance since the President Board
    of Revenue has already held the enquiry and subMitted his
F report - Though the order of the High Court is set aside, the
   matter being grave, the State Government to take appropriate
   action against the erring official/s and to take all remedial
   measures - State Government directed to make amendment
   in the existing rules relating to the taking out of dangerous or
G sensitive prisoner to be transferred from one jail to another
  jail, for court appearance or on administrative grounds; as
  also State Government shall, in consultation with the High
   Court, take a decision about construction of single court room
  complexes for holding trial of dreaded criminals/dangerous
  prisoners in proximity to the Central Jails.
H                                       54
 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH &             55
                     ANR.
       Four criminals escaped from the police custody with A
  help and connivance of the police officers and/or
  negligence/inaction of the guards escorting them.
  Thereafter, they murdered 14 persons in the village. The
  police started torturing the persons from 'B' community.
  The first respondent filed writ petition alleging that after B
  the escape of four dacoits from the police custody, the
  police had started torturing the persons from 'B'
  community in the District. It was prayed that the State and
  its functionaries be directed to refrain from causing
  torture to the people of the said community and directions c
  be issued for their protection. The High Court issued
· various directions but the State Government failed to
  respond to the directions given by the High Court. Due
  to consistent inaction on the part of the State
  Government, the High Court asked the Central Bureau of
                                                               0
   Investigation to hold enquiry into the matter of escape of
  the criminals from the police custody and the role of the
  police officers posted in the District. Thus, the appellant-
  State Government and the Superintendent of Police filed
  the instant appeal.
                                                              E
      This Court stayed the operation of the orde~ of the
 High Court and directed the Chief Secretary, State to
 conclude the enquiry into the matter and submit the
 report. In pursuance thereof, President Board of Revenue
 conducted an enquiry and submitted report as regards         F
 the persons responsible for the said incident and also
 made suggestions in order to prevent repetition of such
 incident.

     As regards the arrest of the said criminals who G
 escaped from the custody, except one all are killed in the
 police encounters and the weapons snatched by the
 above criminals while escaping from the police custody
 have been recovered.
                                                              H
    56        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A        Disposing of the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. Having regard to the fact that the order
  whereby the High Court directed the matter to be referred
  to CBI for holding enquiry into the matter of escape of the
  criminals from the police custody and the role of various
8
  officers posted at Gwalior has been stayed by this Court
  way back In the year 2004, and in 2007 the direction was
  given to the Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh to appoint
  the Additional Chief Secretary to conduct the enquiry into
  the said matter and pursuant thereto President Board of
C Revenue, Gwalior, was nominated by the Chief Secretary
  to hold the enquiry and he has already held the enquiry
  and submitted his report dated May 29, 2008, it is satisfied
  that the direction given by the High Court to refer the
  matter to CBI to hold an enquiry into the matter has lost
D its relevance, thus, the said direction is set aside. [Para
  14] [62-A-C]

       1.2. The escape of four dreaded criminals from the
  police custody and the murder of 14 innocent persons
E by these criminals after their escape are extremely
  serious matters. In the matter as grave as this, the State
  Government was expected to act promptly by taking
  action against the erring police officials but it failed to act,
  necessitating drastic order by the High Court. Though the
F order of the High Court impugned in the instant appeal
  is set aside, but the handling of the matter by the State
  Government and its functionaries has been far from
  satisfactory. The State Government should take
  appropriate action against the erring official/s without any
  further delay and also take all remedial measures to
G ensure that such things do not happen in future. [Para
  15] [62-0-F]
        1.3. The first appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh is
    direct~d, as suggested in the report submitted by the
H
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH & 57
                    ANR.
President Board of Revenue, Gwalior (i) to make A
amendment in the existing rules and provide that
dangerous prisoners shall not be taken out of jail for
journey by public transport vehicles or private vehicles
under any circumstances, and (ii) provide in the Jail
Manual that whenever any dangerous or sensitive B
prisoner is to be transferred from one jail to another jail,
for court appearance or on administrative grounds, the
Jail Superintendent should inform the concerned
 Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate by a
 written communication as well as by meeting them. It is c
 also directed that the State Government shall, in
 consultation with the High Court, take a decision about
 construction of single court room complexes for holding
 trial of dreaded criminals/dangerous prisoners in
 proximity to the Central Jails. The Action Taken Report
                                                             0
 about compliance of the above directions shall be
 submitted by the first appellant before the High Court.
 [Para 16 and 17] [62-G-H; 63-A-C]

    CRININAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 104 of 2012.                                                E

    From the Judgment & Order dated 08.11.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in I.A. No.
8405 of 2004 in W.P. No. 747 of 2001.
                                                                F
     Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellants.

      Puneet Jain, Sambhav Sogani, Chirsti Jain, Rachitta P.
 Rai (for Pratibha Jain) for the Respondents.

     The Judmgent of the Court was delivered by                 G
     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. On March 23, 2001, a gang of four criminals comprising
 of Rambabu Gadariya, Dayaram, Pratap and Gopal, while
 returning from Dabra to Gwalior after attending court, escaped H
     58         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 1 S.C.R.


 A from the police custody. Allegedly, these four criminals escaped
  with the help and connivance of the police officers and/or
  negligence/inaction of the guards escorting them. After
  escaping from the police custody, these four criminals murdered
   14 persons in village Bhanwarpura. This led to harassment and
B torture of persons from gadariya (Baghel) caste by the police.
  They initially filed complaint with the District Judge, but later on
  the first respondent-Ram Prakash Singh filed a Writ Petitibn
  (being Writ Petition No. 747 of 2001) in the nature of Public
  Interest Litigation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
C Bench at Gwalior.                                     ·

          3. In that Writ Petition, it was alleged that after escape of
     four dacoits noted above from police custody, the police has
     started torturing the persons from Baghel community in the
     Gwalior district. Accordingly, it was prayed that the State of
0
     Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries (respondents therein) be
     directed to refrain from causing torture to the people of Baghe/
     Semaj in the district of Gwalior and directions be issued for
     protection of their life and liberty.

E       4. The matter came up for consideration before the High
   Court' on various dates. As the matter was in the nature of public
   interest litigation and the grievance was raised that the above
   criminals after their escape were causing havoc and they have
   not been taken into custody by the police which has caused
F huge fear in the minds of the people of the area, the High Court
   issued various directions from time to time. The High Court
  asked the State Government to hold an enquiry into the escape
  of above criminals from the police custody and submit the report
   regarding action taken against the officers responsible for the
G lapse. Despite numerous opportunities, the State Government
  failed to respond to the directions given by the High Court
  satisfactorily which constrained the High Court to direct the
  Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to remain present
  in the Court. It appears that the Advocate General of the State
H of Madhya Pradesh made a statement before the High Court
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH &                59
             ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
that the enquiry into the episode shall be conducted by a very A
senior office of the State and report submitted to the Court.
However, nothing happened in the matter. The High Court then
called the Principal Secretary (Home) in the Court. The
 Principal Sacretary (Home) appeared and made a statement
that the enquiry into the matter shall be conducted within a B
 period of two months from March 9, 2004. On June 30, 2004,
on behalf of the State Government, time was sought for
 submission of the enquiry report, but no enqui;y report was
 submitted. In the backdrop of consistent inaction on the part of
 the State Government in the matter, on November 8, 2004, the C
 High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to
 hold enquiry into the matter of escape of the above criminals
 from the police custody and the role of the officers posted at
 Gwalior, particularly the role of Superintendent of Police,
 Gwalior, Inspector General of Police, Gwalior, Superintendent, D
 Central Jail, Gwalior, Jailor, Central Jail, Gwalior, District
 Magistrate, Gwalior, Town Inspector, Gwalior and Sub-
  Divisional Officer posted at Dabra. It is this order which has
 been challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh and
  Superintendent of Police in this Appeal, by special leave.      E
    5. On December 17, 2004, this Court issued notice to the
respondents and stayed operation of the order of the High
Court impugned in the Appeal.

    6. On November 28, 2007, this Court directed the Chief F
Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, to appoint the Additional
Chief Secretary to conclude the enquiry into the matter as
expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months
from the date of the order and submit a report to this Court.
                                                                 G
    7. In pursuance of the order dated November 28, 2007,
an enquiry has been conducted by Shri Rakesh Bansal, IAS,
President Board of Revenue, Gwalior.    ·

                                                                 H
    60        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 1 S.C.R.

A       8. In his report dated May 29, 2008, the President Board
    of Revenue, Gwalior, recorded his conclusions thus :-

         "10 .... , I reach to the conclusion that the then S.P. Shri
         Anvesh Manglam, can not be held responsible for the
         incident of escape of dacoits from police custody.
B
          13 ..... , I reach to the conclusion that Shri Yogesh
         Choudhary and Shri K.P. Sharma the then Deputy
         Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) can not be held
         responsible fOf this incident of escape of Gadaria gang
c        from police custody.

         14 .... For the whole chain of events, most responsible
         person is Reserve Inspector Ajay Tripathi only.

D        15. It is worth to mention here that Government has already
         dismissed/compulsorily retired from service two Head
         Constables and four constables deployed in the escort duty
         of dacoits for carrying them for appearance before court
         at the time of their escape."
E         9. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
    against the Reserve Inspector Ajay Tripathi have not been taken
    to logical conclusion in view of the stay order obtained by him
    in a judicial proceeding.

F        10. In his report, Shri Rakesh Bansal, IAS, President Board
    of Revenue, Gwalior has also made certain suggestions in order
    to prevent repetition of such incident. These suggestions are:-
         "16(1) It should be provided in the Rules that dangerous
         prisoners must not be taken out of jail for journey by public
G
         transport vehicles or private vehicles, under any
         circumstances.

         (2) Keeping in view the possibility of escape during
         transport of prisoners, it appear to be prudent that one
H
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH & 61
            ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
    regular court room be constructed in proximity to the central A
    Jails.

           The suggestion of the same intent has also been
    mentioned by the then Commissioner of Gwalior Division
    in his enquiry report on the page 27.                  B

    (3) It must be provided in the Jail Manual, that whenever
    any dangerous or sensitive prisoner is to be transferred
    from one jail to another jail, for court appearance or on
    administrative grounds, the jail superintendent should
    inform the concerned Superintendent of Police and District C
    Magistrate vide a demi-official letter and by meeting them
    personally."

     11. No affidavit has been filed by the present appellants
indicating whether the a.bove suggestions of the President, D
Board of Revenue, have been accepted by the State
Government or not. However, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned
counsel for the appellants, submited that the State Government
did not have any reservation in accepting the suggestions made
by the President, Board of Revenue, in his report as noted E
above.

      12. As regards the arrest of the above criminals who
escaped from police custody on March 23, 2001, in the
additional affidavit filed by U.R. Netam, l.G. of Police, Police F
Headquarters, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, dated April 01, 2007,
it has been stated that 4 out of 5 dacoits of the gang have been
killed in police encounters and only Rambabu Gadarla is
believed to be alive. It has also been stated that all the weapons
snatched by the above criminals while escaping from police G
custody have been recovered.
    13. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel for the
appellants, stated that Criminal Writ Petition No. 747 of 2001
was still pending before the High Court.
                                                                  H
    62         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A        14. Having regard to the fact that the order dated
   November 8, 2004 whereby the High Court directed the matter
   to be referred to CBI for holding enquiry into the matter of
   escape of above criminals from the police custody and the role
   of various officers posted at Gwalior has been stayed by this
B Court way back in the year 2004, and in 2007 the direction was
   given to the Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh to appoint the
   Additional Chief Secretary to conduct the enquiry into the above
   matter and pursuant thereto Shri Rakesh Bansal, IAS,
   President Board of Revenue, Gwalior. was nominated by the
c Chief Secretary to hold the enquiry and he has already held the
   enquiry and submitted his report dated May 29, 2008, we are
   satisfied that the direction given by the High Court to refer the
   matter to CBI to hold an enquiry into the matter has lost its
   relevance. We, accordingly, set aside the said direction.
D
        15. The escape of four dreaded criminals from the police
  custody and the murder of 14 innocent persons by these
  criminals after their escape are extremely serious matters. In
  the matter as grave as this, the State Government was P.Xpecled
  to act promptly by taking action against the erring police officials
E but it failed to act, necessitating drastic order by the High Court.
  Though we have set aside the order of the High Court impugned
  in this Appeal for the reasons noted above, but the handling of
  the matter by the State Government and its functionaries has
  been far from satisfactory. We would like the State Government
F to take appropriate action against the erring official/s without
  any further delay and also take all remedial measures to ensure
  that such things do not happen in future.
        16. We direct the first appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh,
G as suggested in the report submitted by Shri Rakesh Bansal;
  (i) to make amendment in the existing rules and provide that
  dangerous prisoners shall not be taken out of jail for journey
  by public transport vehicles or private vehicles under any
  circumstances, and (ii) provide in the Jail Manual that whenever
H any dangerous or sensitive prisoner is to be transferred from
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH & 63
            ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.)
one jail to another jail, for court appearance or on administrative A
grounds, the Jail Superintendent should inform the concerned
Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate by a written
communication as well as by meeting them. We also direct that
the State Government shall, in consultation with the High Court,
take a decision about construction of single cOtJrt room B
complexes for holding trial of dreaded criminals/dangerous
prisoners in proximity to the Central Jails.

       17. The Action Taken Report about compliance of the
above directions shall be submitted by the first appellant before C
the High Court.

       18. With the above directions, Appeal stands disposed of.

     19. It shall be open to the High Court to issue further
directions, if necessary, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 747 of D
2001, which is said to be still pending before the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.

N.J.                                       Appeal disposed of.