Jodhpur High Court Asked SP of Bikaner three Questions. Solution by Expert

BIKANER, India - March 30, 2025 - PRLog -- Questions asked by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur Judicature:
1.      Under what circumstances did the policemen halt at a hotel located around 30-40 km before reaching Deshnok Police Station, and why did they not only stay overnight but for more than 20 hours?
2.      The policemen travelled from Ayodhya to Nokha, covering approximately 1100 km, and then, after almost a day, reached Deshnok. What proceedings have been initiated against the SHO and the policemen, considering that without the direction or permission of SHO, the policeman would have never taken a halt before 30-40 kms and if they had not stayed there for so long?
3.      Should these two cases run separately or be consolidated?
Answers
1.      As per police, the policeman stayed due heavy rush at Deshnok Mela. They stayed at Nokha Hotel by the permission of Deshnok SHO.
2. These two cases run separately as the first FIR 124/2024 PS Deshnok involves incidents kidnapping and the FIR 637/2024 PS Nokha, involves the incident happened at Nokha hotel in the presence of Police. With the theory of "Taste of Sameness", fails in this case.
Legal Points:
1. The allegations of the second FIR, it was submitted as hoe police involved in support of accused person and how they violate the SOP provided in POCSO Investigation thus allegations of the first FIR.
2.   No sanction stands taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act for proceeding against the respondent. Since it's the case of clear violation of their official duty.
3.  The Police stays more than 20 Hours at Nokha, without informing local police station or without making any DDR entries, thus they have clear intention to make pressure on the victim for the statement in favor of accused person.
4.  The Second FIR Filled with clear pleading of the previous FIR, and alleges how police officers are involved.
5.  The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding.
From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR:
1.  When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
2.  When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
3.   When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. The FIR and the consequent investigation, are both are different and but incidents are continuous.
Hence this is the case of large conspiracy.