SOMESH CHAURASIA versus STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 22-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
692
SOMESH CHAURASIA
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 590-591 of 2021)
JULY 22, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 (1) – Prosecution
case was that the second respondent was convicted under s.302
IPC and awarded life imprisonment – By order dated 3.2.2016, High
Court directed that the sentence shall during the pendency of appeal
remain suspended under s. 389(1) – Two applications were filed
before High Court for cancellation of bail and revocation of order
dated 3.2.2016 suspending the sentence of second respondent inter-
alia on ground that after the sentence was suspended, an FIR was
registered against the second respondent at the behest of the
appellant alleging that the second respondent was involved in the
murder of his father during the period when his sentence was
suspended – By impugned order, High Court declined to entertain
the application for revocation of suspension of sentence/grant of
bail and allowed him to continue on bail until his claim that he was
being falsely implicated was first investigated in ninety days – Hence
the instant appeal – On 12.2.2021, the appellant apprised this Court
that by order dated 8.1.2021, ASG issued summons to second
respondent under s.319 in the course of session trial arising out of
charge-sheet – However, second respondent was resisting arrest –
In order dated 8.2.2021, the ASJ expressed serious apprehension
that the accused (second respondent) and the Superintendent of
Police had colluded with the subordinates of the latter “to frame
serious charges” against the judge – The Director General of Police
of Madhya Pradesh was directed “to immediately ensure the arrest
of the second respondent and report compliance by filing a personal
affidavit in this Court” – Second respondent was ostensibly arrested
from bus stand after lot of efforts – Held: The High Court by
declining to revoke suspension of sentence had clearly transgressed
into an unusual domain – High Court in effect stultified the
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 692
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
administration of criminal justice – This order had the effect of
obstructing a fair investigation into the FIR at the behest of the
accused despite the nature and gravity of the allegations against
him – High Court erred in passing its directions which were misused
to defeat the investigation – The police submitted a closure report
absolving the second respondent – Thereafter, despite the order
under s.319, the second respondent evaded arrested in contravention
of the warrant of arrest which was issued by the ASJ – The facts
indicated that the police was complicit in shielding the second
respondent – The criminal antecedents of the second respondent
and the prior conviction on a charge of murder were adverted to –
The second respondent, whose spouse was an MLA, was provided
security by the State – The DGP was sanguine in informing this
court that the second respondent could not be arrested despite the
directions issued by this Court – It was only after this Court issued
a peremptory direction indicating recourse to the coercive arm of
law that the second respondent was arrested, ostensibly from a bus-
stand – The material on the record indicated that an effort was
made to shield the accused from the administration of criminal justice
– The apprehensions expressed by the ASJ in his order dated
8.2.2021 of the machinations of a highly influential accused evading
the process of law are amply borne out by the facts – There was no
reasonable basis to doubt the anguish and concern of a judicial
officer – That the State did not oppose the application under s.319
CrPC is a feeble attempt to justify the inaction of the police –
Unfortunately, High Court failed in its duty to ensure that the sanctity
of the criminal justice process is preserved.
Judiciary: Independence of judiciary – Judicial independence
of the district judiciary is cardinal to the integrity of the entire system
– If the faith of the citizen in the administration of justice has to be
preserved, it is to the district judiciary that attention must be focused
as well as the ‘higher’ judiciary – The district judiciary operates
under the administrative supervision of the High Court which must
secure and enhance its independence from external influence and
control – This compartmentalization of the judiciary and executive
should not be breached by interfering wit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.