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)