Jharkhand High Court Stays Probe In FIR Against Bokaro Steel Plant’s Senior Officials Accused Of Protestor’s Murder
The Jharkhand High Court in an interim order stayed investigation against senior officials of Bokaro Steel Plant in relation to an FIR registered in connection with a protest which allegedly turned violent, leading to the death of one of the protestors.
The FIR was filed against the Director In-Charge and the Executive Director (P&A) of the Bokaro Steel Plant. The FIR was registered under various provisions of the BNS including Sections 126(2)(wrongful restrain), 127(2)(wrongful confinement), 115(2)(voluntarily causing hurt), 117(2)(Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 109(attempt to murder), 103(Punishment for murder).
Justice Ananda Sen in his order noted that, “The allegation in the FIR is that a peaceful protest was being organized by a group of persons wherein, in the evening, the CISF personnel to disperse the crowd actively got themselves engaged in removing them by force, resulting in death of one of the protesters. It is also alleged in the FIR that the entire act was done on the instruction of the petitioners, who are the higher officials of the Bokaro Steel Plant“.
The counsel for the State as well as informant after going through the FIR submitted that there is nothing in the FIR which suggests that the petitioners have committed the murder of the protester or have actively and physically participated in dispersing the group by using force. They submitted that from the FIR, it is clear that an order was given to disperse the group
The high court thereafter observed, “Considering the aforesaid submissions, I am inclined to pass an interim order directing the respondents not to proceed in the investigation of the FIR being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 64/2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 103, 161(1) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of J.M, 1st Class, Bokaro and further no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners“.
The petitioners, represented by Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Bibhash Sinha, argued that the site of the protest was a prohibited area and the Circle Officer was tasked with overseeing the law and order in the region. It was submitted that the Circle Officer had already registered the FIR regarding the incident, depicting that it was the protestors who became unruly. This conduct of the protestors, according to the petitioners, led to the lathi charge and the resultant casualty. It as argued that there was a lack of evidence to suggest that directions were issued by the petitioners to cause harm or death to any individual.
After considering the submissions of the parties, the court deemed it sufficient to pass an interim order restraining the State from proceeding with the investigation. The case was listed for further hearing after twelve weeks.
For Petitioner: Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Bibhash Sinha
For State: Additional Counsel Nirupama
For Informant: Advocate J. Mazumdar
Case Title: Birendera Kumar Tiwari v Rajshree Banerjee [W.P.(Cr.) No. 332 of 2025]
