IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.127 of 2011 Ramjee Prasad, S/o Late Babu Chand Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Chiraiyantaur, near Khasmahal, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. …………..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Malsalami, P.S.-Patna City, Patna. 5. The Investigating Officer, Malsalami, P.S. Case No.40/10, Malsalami, P.S., Patna City, Patna. …………….RESPONDENTS. ======================================================== 5 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to SC-4. Petitioner has asked for a direction to barricade the police officials from his apprehension in connection with Malsalami P.S. Case No.40/10 registered under Section 419, 420, 389, 396, 120 and 412 of the I.P.C. on the plea that he happens to be Ramjee Prasad, son of Late Babu Chand Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Chitraiyantaur, Near Khasmahal, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna while the investigating authority after taking warrant of arrest and process against one Ramjee Keshri @ Birendra Singh @ Keshri Jee, son of Late Badri Sao is adamant to apprehend the petitioner after getting him accordingly impersonating. It has further been submitted that there happens to be no positive, concrete material available before the I.O. to connect the petitioner his complicity with regard to the offence so alleged. Therefore, the apprehension of petitioner will be in utter violation of Article 21 and 22 of the 2 Constitution. Accordingly, prayed that the investigating authority of Malsalami P.S. Case No.40/10 be restrained from apprehending the petitioner and getting him forwarded in the instant case. At the other hand, learned AC to SC-4 submitted that from Annexure-A of the counter affidavit it is evident that petitioner is the person who after changing his name is indulge in criminal action. Also submitted that the name of the petitioner has come up during course of investigation from the mouth of co-accused. So the complicity of petitioner appears and the same cannot be ascertained definitely unless and until there happens to be apprehension followed with T.I. parade. Therefore, the petitioner whoever may be, cannot claim the relief in its present form as it amounts to interference during course of occurrence. Malsalami P.S. Case No.40/10 has been registered against the driver of Truck No.78BN 6107 as well as its owner on account of disappearance of truck during transportation. From Annexure-2 it is evident that police had prayed for requisition to be issued against ten suspected accused wherein at Serial No.4 name of Ramjee Keshri @ Birendra Singh @ Keshri Jee, son of Late Badri Sao of village-Panditganj, P.S.-Kadirganj, District-Patna at present tenant of Omjee Gupta, Khas Mahal, Postal Park, P.S.- Jakkanpur, Patna stood. At this juncture I would like to emphasize that the present offence, being a cognizable offence, gives a liberty to the police to apprehend 3 any person suspected to be involved with the commission of the offence even without asking for process from the court concerned. Furthermore, in the present nature of the offence, the complicity of more than one accused cannot be denied. By passing any kind of order restraining arrest of accused / suspect during course of investigation will certainly jeopardized the interest of the prosecution. However, the involvement of the accused will only surface in case of presence of concrete material so collected during course of trial and that may be primary, secondary, direct and circumstantial. Whether the petitioner appears to be Ramjee Prasad or the person whose name stood at Annexure-2 of the writ petition is only to be ascertained after proper identity and whether he is involved in the case or not, will follow with T.I. parade. Therefore, the relief in its present form at the present stage when the investigation is going on cannot be granted. Consequent thereupon, petition is rejected. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)