The Patna High Court has summoned the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Investigating Officer (IO) of Sahebganj police station in Muzaffarpur to be physically present before the court later this month in connection with a 28-year-old dacoity case that has remained pending due to alleged police inaction.
Justice Satyavrat Verma passed the order while hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Umashankar Singh alias Uma, a 72-year-old resident of West Champaran. The court directed the SHO and IO to explain why no effective action was taken despite the issuance of warrants and attachment and seizure orders by the court years ago.
According to the prosecution, on August 9, 1997, local chowkidars Shatrughan Roy and Ramesh Mahto informed the Sahebganj police that one Gopal Tiwari was planning a robbery along with his associates in the Nayatola Dostpur locality. Acting on the tip-off, the police conducted a raid, during which Rambabu Singh alias Vijay Singh was arrested with a loaded rifle, while other accused persons managed to flee.
Umashankar Singh was named as one of the accused in the FIR and was shown as absconding. The police subsequently obtained warrants against him and, in 2007, secured an attachment order from the court. An advertisement was also issued to trace him. However, despite these steps on paper, no actual coercive action was taken, and the case remained stagnant for decades.
During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the SHO and IO, submitted that proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were initiated in 2001, followed by proceedings under Section 83 CrPC in 2007. It was also stated that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application had been rejected and that he remained unrepresented.
Challenging this version, Singh contended that the processes under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were never executed. He argued that had these proceedings been genuinely carried out, he would have surrendered as far back as 2007. Singh further pointed out serious lapses in the FIR, including the absence of his father’s name and complete address, which, according to him, reflected a mechanical and careless investigation.
His counsel also highlighted that the FIR vaguely mentioned “Kesariya” police station without specifying the district, whereas the petitioner is a resident of Kalyanpur police station in East Champaran. It was argued that no household articles were ever seized, which would have been mandatory had proceedings under Section 83 CrPC actually been executed.
Taking note of the prolonged delay and the apparent inconsistencies in the police version, the High Court expressed concern over the manner in which the case was handled. The court directed the SHO and IO to remain present and explain the failure to execute court processes over nearly three decades, despite repeated judicial orders.
The matter is expected to be taken up later this month, when the court will seek accountability from the police officials for the inordinate delay and alleged dereliction of duty in the long-pending dacoity case.
