IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M). No. 327 of 2011. Date of Decision:31.5.2011. _______________________________________________ Sadik Mohamad. …Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. …Respondent. For the petitioner: Mr.Manoj Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This case had been transferred to the State C.I.D. as I find from the record that the investigation was not being conducted properly. Pursuant to the order dated 11.5.2011, the case has been taken over by the C.I.D. with the direction that the petitioner should join investigation. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner was called for interrogation on 25.5.2011 and 29.5.2011 but could not join investigation. According to the State, the material so far collected points an accusing finger at the petitioner herein. But I am not detailing with that aspect in this petition lest it prejudices the case of the petitioner herein. Suffice it to say that when the petitioner was Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 called twice to join investigation, he has not done so. This is a sufficient ground for rejection of this application. A prayer has also been made by the Police for custodial interrogation of the petitioner on the ground that not only does the suicide note implicate the petitioner but vital links which implicate the petitioner can be obtained by custodial interrogation to ascertain inter alia as to how the injuries were caused to the deceased. This petition is dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to approach for regular bail again in accordance with law. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 31.2011(R).