IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.616 of 2009 1. KAILASH RAUT S/O LATE BHUJHAWAN RAUT, R/O VILLAGE/MOHALLA- NEW JAGANPURA, P.S.RAM KRISHNA NAGAR, DIST. PATNA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CITY), PATNA. ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 05 06.10.2009 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel no.21. The petitioner raises a grievance before this court about his illegal detention in a criminal case lodged against unknown persons. One Jawahar Lal Rajpal lodged F.I.R. bearing Patna Patrakar Nagar P.S.Case No. 103/2009, dated 01.06.2009 (annexure-1), under Sections 392, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was about alleged loot of Rs. 8.66 lacs, and was lodged against unknown persons. During course of interrogation, the Investigating Agency (Special Investigating Unit) noticed involvement of the petitioner’s full brother and his ‘Mousa’. This caused suspicion against the petitioner and he was 2 taken to the police station on 07.06.2009, at 8 P.M. The Investigating Agency after investigation found that the petitioner had no involvement in the case and, therefore, was released. The area of dispute is that, according to the petitioner, he was taken into custody on 07.06.2009 at 8 P.M., and was released on 10.06.2009 at 10 P.M. On the other hand, as per the Investigating Agency, the petitioner was taken to the police Station on 07.06.2009 at 8 P.M., and was after interrogation for few hours, released the same night. In this background, the petitioner raises a grievance before this court that he was needlessly taken into custody for a period of three days and, therefore, be suitably compensated. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is evident on the face of it that the F.I.R. discloses allegation of daring loot in the township of Patna, and investigation revealed involvement of two close relatives of the petitioner. In fact, the materials which have come on record during course of investigation show that the looted money was distributed in the shop of the petitioner’s ‘Mousa’. In such a situation, we do not find fault and, indeed the petitioner has also not raised any issue regarding his interrogation. The issue which arises before us is with respect to the correctness of the versions of both the sides, as to the period of detention, are supported only by statements made in the affidavits. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right 3 in his submission that the primary onus on him has been duly discharged, and the same shifts to the Investigating Agency which is in possession of contemporaneous documents. In that view of the matter, it appears to us that the Investigating Agency has not been able to prove its case that it had released the petitioner the same evening soon after the petitioner’s interrogation completed. It was open to the Investigating Agency to substantiate its stand on the basis of documentary evidence which it has failed to do. In this background, we are left with a strong feeling that the petitioner was retained in custody for a period longer than needed. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this Criminal Writ Petition with strong words of caution to the Investigating Agency to desist from retaining a person for purposes of interrogation in custody beyond the needed hours. They should also maintain the records including the case diary properly and in order. This Criminal Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sym/ ( S.K.Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)