IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.179 OF 2010 KAMTA PRASAD, SON OF LATE MAHAVIR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEWLE, P.O. DHEOSA, P.S. SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA……………………………………..……….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ZONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL, MUNGER, BIHAR 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, MUNGER, BIHAR 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, PATNA 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHEIKHPURA 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SHEIKHPURA 9. LALAN KUMAR, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BARBIGHA POLICE STATION, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA 10. S.I. YADUNANDAN CHAUDHARY, SON OF NOT KNOWN, S.I. OF SHEIKHPURA P.S., P.S. AND DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA, INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF BARBIGHA P.S., CASE NO.272 OF 2009 DATED 11.11.2009………………….RESPONDENTS *** 5 06.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for direction to the respondents to entrust the investigation of Barbigha P.S. Case No.272/09 registered under Sections 304B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to an independent agency or to any superior police officer of the C.I.D and to arrest the accused. He has also prayed for direction to - 2 - the respondents for initiation of an appropriate proceeding for misuse of authority by the Officer Incharge of Sheikhpura Police Station and Investigating Officer of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of disappearance of his daughter, he had filed a case of murder and disappearance and destruction of her body on account of unfulfilled demand of dowry. The husband of the daughter was made accused who was apprehended by the police and remanded to the court for judicial custody. A bail application was filed by the accused in the court below which called for the case diary but the same was not produced. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the Officer Incharge, Barbhigha, in reference to the letter of the S.P., in the court below which disclosed that after further investigation and supervision, it was found that the daughter of the petitioner had fled away from the train while coming with the petitioner. Therefore, an opinion was expressed in the letter that it could not be proper to keep the accused in judicial custody. - 3 - On such petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the court below granted provisional bail to accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Superintendent of Police, Officer Incharge and the Investigating Officer have gone into connivance with the accused persons and by suppressing the materials collected during investigation, they ensured that the accused is allowed bail by the court on the basis of the said opinion expressed by the S.P. He submits that the police had no jurisdiction to express such opinion before the court where bail petition of the accused was pending consideration. A counter affidavit has been filed and from the counter affidavit it appears that two cases were filed simultaneously at different places for the same incident. It is also stated that when investigation of the case progressed, materials surfaced from which it appeared that in fact, daughter of the petitioner had fled away from the train while coming from Chaibasa with the petitioner. This case was supervised by the Senior Police Officer and he found that - 4 - there were evidences to show that the girl had fled away from train on her own. In view of such further materials which have come during investigation and which were considered by the supervisory authority, the said petition was filed. It is true that when the case diary was called for by the court below, duty of the police was to send the same to the court for perusal and consideration in reference to the bail application of the accused. Instead of doing that, the officer incharge has filed a petition giving clear cut opinion in favour of release of the accused. This clearly shows that the officer incharge has exceeded his jurisdiction. However, since investigation of the case is still going on and accused is on provisional bail, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. With regard to conduct of the Superintendent of Police and the Officer Incharge, petitioner will be at liberty to make formal complaint to the higher police officials - 5 - namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police of the Region. The complaint petition of the petitioner shall be considered by the concerned authorities at an early date. So far as transfer of the case for investigation is concerned, petitioner may file a petition for that purpose also before the D.I.G. and I.G. of the Region. The same shall also be considered in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. B.T. (J.N.Singh, J.)