Jharkhand HC said on Ranchi Main Road Violence Government is not showing interest in getting the matter investigated

Pankaj Prasad
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand High Court

Hearing the petition filed on the Ranchi Main Road violence case in the Jharkhand High Court.

On June 10, Jharkhand High Court heard a public interest litigation filed by the NIA to investigate the incident of nuisance in Ranchi's Main Road. While listening, expressed displeasure over the status of the investigation and the non-filing of reply by the Home Secretary and DGP. During the hearing, a division bench of Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad sought two weeks' time to file a reply on behalf of the Home Secretary and DGP.

Verbal remarks made by the bench

While making oral remarks, the bench said that it appears that the government is not showing interest in getting the matter investigated. Doesn't seem serious towards investigating the matter. The incident should have been investigated with the help of CCTV footage. The responsibility of investigation was given from SIT to CID. Why the government gave the responsibility of investigation to the CID, it has not been clarified. The Bench said that considering the gravity of the matter, two weeks' time cannot be given to the Home Secretary and the DGP to file the reply. The division bench fixed August 18 for the next hearing of the matter.

NIA submits report

Advocate AK Das presented the report on behalf of NIA. It has been told in which cases she can investigate. NIA has given detailed information about its power. At the same time, Advocate Vijay Ranjan Sinha appeared on behalf of the applicant. It is noteworthy that the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Yadav has filed a public interest litigation. He has demanded a probe by the NIA into the whole matter.

What is the intention of the government behind the transfers?

During the last hearing, the bench had said that the SSP Surendra Kumar Jha and the station in-charge of the Daily Market police station, who were directly involved in the research, were transferred or removed during the critical time of the research. What is the intention of the government behind these transfers? The division bench had directed the Home Secretary and the DGP to file a personal affidavit on the transfer of the SSP and Daily Market station in-charge.

Opinion sought in the matter of court fees

Jharkhand High Court heard the PIL filed in the matter of huge increase in court fees. A division bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while hearing, asked the Additional Advocate General to take instructions from the state government. The division bench directed to apprise the state government on the Court Fee Amendment Act. The date of August 17 has been fixed for the next hearing of the matter.

side presented by the applicant

Earlier, advocate Rajendra Krishna, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench that the state government did not consult anyone before increasing the court fee. Court fees have been increased. This will hamper the fundamental rights of the people. In Jharkhand, the state government does not have the right to increase the fees on Vakalatnama. It is the right of the Bar Council or the Bar Association that how much fee should be charged on Vakalatnama. There is a violation of the authority of the council, because the government does not give money for welfare. Jharkhand is a poor and backward state. Due to this increase, it will become more difficult for the people of the state to get justice. Financially weak people will not be able to come to court to file a case. With the increase, it will not be possible to provide easy and accessible justice to the people. The Court Fees Revised Act implemented is wrong. On behalf of the state government, Additional Advocate General Jai Prakash argued.