IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.W.J.C. No.427 of 2009 MD.SHAKIL, S/O LATE MD. NOOR, R/O SHERSHAH ROAD, KATHAKTAL, KOIRY TOLA, P.S. ALAMGANJ, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA ZONE, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA 5. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY, PATNA 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE, OFFICER, PATNA CITY 8. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ALAMGANJ P.S., PATNA 9. MD. WAKAR, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, S/O MD. SHAKIL, R/O SHERSHAH ROAD, KOIRY TOLA, P.S. ALAMGANJ, PATNA .. RESPONDENTS **** /25/ 11 February 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for State. Petitioner preferred this criminal writ petition in May, 2009, raising a grievance that petitioner’s child has been kidnapped and although a criminal case has been instituted, the police is not making sincere efforts to investigate the case and trace the child. On account of various orders passed, in this 2 case, the Director General of Police, himself, appeared and filed affidavit to ensure that the case will be investigated in the best manner, possible. Ultimately, as appears from counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent no. 2, a final report has been submitted after completing the investigation. A copy of the final report in Alamganj P.S. Case No. 113 of 2008 under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code has been annexed as Annexure “B”, dated 27.01.2011. The said report discloses that against one accused, Sonu @ Tashif, a charge sheet was submitted on 18.04.2009 and further investigation was continued, but, ultimately, when no clues could be found about the missing boy then the investigation was closed on 30th October, 2009. Thereafter, pursuant to order, passed in this writ petition, further, investigation was initiated on 31.12.2009. According to Annexure “B” as well as statement on oath made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2, in spite of sincere and consistent efforts of the investigating team the victim child could not be recovered. It appears from the material on record that the charge sheeted accused had 3 confessed before the police that the boy was killed and thrown in river Ganges. However, nothing could be recovered on the basis of that confession. In the light of aforesaid facts we have considered the prayer, made on behalf of the petitioner through I.As. No. 292 and 293 of 2011 that Central Bureau of Investigation be added as a respondent in this case and investigation of the criminal case be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation. In our considered opinion the aforesaid exercise is not warranted because at the instance of this Court the police reinvestigated the crime by constituting a team under the supervision of Director General of Police and, thereafter, again, a closure report has been submitted that no clue has been found. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to keep this writ petition pending and to direct for adding Central Bureau of Investigation as a party and to hand over the matter for further investigation. Both the interlocutory applications are rejected. The writ petition is finally disposed off 4 with liberty to the petitioner that if he has any further point to raise against the investigation conducted by the police he may appear before the concerned Magistrate or the Court and raise his grievances in accordance with law. S.A. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)