escape of four dreaded criminals from the police =Ram Prakash Singh filed a Writ Petition (being Writ Petition No. 747 of 2001) in the nature of Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 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.

Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRININAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) STATE OF M.P. & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUS RAM PRAKASH SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T R.M. Lodha, J. 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 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 torture of persons from gadariya Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 2 (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 Petition (being Writ Petition No. 747 of 2001) in the nature of Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 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 Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries (respondents therein) be directed to refrain from causing torture to the people of Baghel Samaj in the district of Gwalior and directions be issued for protection of their life and liberty. 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 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 Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 3 criminals from the police custody and submit the report regarding action taken against the officers responsible for the 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 of Madhya Pradesh made a statement before the High Court that the enquiry into the episode shall be conducted by a very 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 Secretary (Home) appeared and made a statement that the enquiry into the matter shall be conducted within a 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 enquiry report was submitted. In the backdrop of consistent inaction on the part of the State Government in the matter, on November 8, 2004, the 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 Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 4 Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, Inspector General of Police, Gwalior, Superintendent, 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 5 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 for this incident of escape of Gadaria gang from police custody. 14. ... For the whole chain of events, most responsible person is Reserve Inspector Ajay Tripathi only. 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." 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. 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 transport vehicles or private vehicles, under any circumstances. (2) Keeping in view the possibility of escape during transport of prisoners, it Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 6 appear to be prudent that one regular court room be constructed in proximity to the central 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. (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 Magistrate vide a demi-official letter and by meeting them personally." 11. No affidavit has been filed by the present appellants indicating whether the above suggestions of the President, 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 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, I.G. of Police, Police Headquarters, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, dated April 01, 2007, it has been stated that 4 out of 5 dacoits of the gang Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 7 have been killed in police encounters and only Rambabu Gadaria is believed to be alive. It has also been stated that all the weapons snatched by the above criminals while escaping from police 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. 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 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 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. 15. The escape of four dreaded criminals from the police Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 8 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 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 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 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, 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 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 Magistrate by a written communication as Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 9 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 court room 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 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 2001, which is said to be still pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. ........................J. (R.M. LODHA) NEW DELHI; ........................J. JANUARY 10, 2012 (H.L. GOKHALE)

grievance of meagre allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Dam by the State Government of Gujarat to the district of Kuchchh which is alleged to constitute 1/4th of the total area of the State of Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone district. By means of the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there are no judicially manageable standards for :1: adjudication for allocation of water in favour of any region

                                                               REPORTABLE

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011
                                      in
       SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No(s).5822 OF 2006

KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS.     Petitioner(s)/
                                                         Applicant(s)

                 VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.                      Respondent(s)

                              O  R  D  E  R



            Heard          learned           counsel         for         the

applicant(s)/petitioner(s).

            This   interlocutory   application   for   directions   is

filed   in   the   special   leave   petition.     The   special   leave

petition has been filed  against the judgment of the Gujarat

High   Court   dated   04.10.2005   dismissing   the   writ   petition

filed by way of Public Interest Litigation.   The prayer in

the Writ Petition related to the alleged grievance of meagre

allocation   of   water   from   Sardar   Sarovar   Dam   by   the   State

Government   of   Gujarat   to   the   district   of   Kuchchh   which   is

alleged to constitute 1/4th of the total area of the State of

Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone district.

            By   means   of   the   impugned   judgment   the   Division

Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ  petition holding

that   there     are     no     judicially       manageable     standards

for                                          :1:

adjudication for allocation of water in favour of any region


within the State. The Government is the best judge to decide

how much water should be released from the Narmada Canal to

Kuchchh and how much water is to be left for other regions.

All   these   decisions   require   delicate   balancing   and

consideration   of   complex   social   and   economical

considerations   which   cannot   be   brought   under   the   judicial

scrutiny.     In   fact,   the   State   Government   has   accepted   the

decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal which cannot

be said to be arbitrary.

            Now,   this   interlocutory   application   for   interim

directions has been filed with the following prayers :-

      "(a) to appoint a committee comprising of experts
      to   go   into   the   pros   and   cons   of   various
      alternative   systems   of   mode   of   conveyance   of
      Narmada   waters   through   Kachchh   Branch   Canal   to
      the   region   of   Kachchh   with   reference   to   cost
      benefit   ratio   and   other   relevant   aspects   and   be
      further please to direct the committee to submit
      a   detailed   report   in   this   regard   to   the   Hon'ble
      Court, and this Hon'ble Court be further pleased
      to pass further appropriate orders on receipt of
      such expert report.

      (b) restrain the respondents from commencing the
      construction   of   proposed   Kachchh   Branch   Canal
      until the aforesaid exercise is completed by this
      Hon'ble Court.

      (c)   direct   the   respondents   to   consider   the
      relative cost advantage among various methods for
      transportation   of   water   through   Kuchchh   Branch
      Canal.

      (d)   direct   the   respondents   to   consider   the
      relative   cost   advantage   in   transporting   water
      through   Kuchchh   Branch   by   pipeline   as   suggested
      by CWC.
                                     :2:




      (e)   direct   the   respondents   to   present   facts   and


     figures   on   the   basis   of   which   the   decision   to
     transport the water through Kuchchh Branch Canal
     has been arrived at by the respondents."



     We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation

of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can

be   a  matter   of  judicial   review.    It  is   for  the   executive

authorities to look into this matter. As held by this Court

in  Divisional   Manager,   Aravali   Golf   Club   &   Anr.    Vs.

Chander   Hass   &   Anr.    (2008)   1   SCC   683,   there   must   be

judicial restraint in such matters.

     For the reasons above stated, we are not inclined to

grant   any   of   the   prayers   made   in   the   interlocutory

application.   The   interlocutory   application   is   dismissed

accordingly.

                                   ..........................J.
                                   (MARKANDEY KATJU)



NEW DELHI;                         ..........................J.
JULY 22, 2011                      (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)