IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.881 of 2009 GITA KUMARI wife of Brajesh Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla- Bank Colony, Lane no.3, Near St. Karens School, Danapur, Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Lok Nayaj Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. 3. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Patna, Bihar. 4. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6. The Officer-in-charge, Danapur police station, Danapur, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 5 17.9.2010 It appears that this court by order dated 27.7.2010 directed the Officer-in-charge, Danapur police station as well as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Danapur to file their respective affidavits. Learned State counsel submits that he is filing two affidavits, one on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Danapur and the other on behalf of State House Officer, Danapur police station. He submits that there is no post like Assistant Superintendent of Police, Danapur, instead there is a post of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Danapur. As such counter affidavit has been filed by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Danapur. Let the aforesaid counter affidavits be kept on the record. In the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for handing over the investigation of Danapur P.S. case no. 107 of 2009 to the Central Bureau of Investigation. He has further prayed for direction to the respondents to recover her kidnapped 2 husband, who has been made captive since over one year. The informant gave a written report to officer-in- charge, Danapur police station alleging that her husband, Brajesh Kumar Singh was abducted from the Bihar Regiment Officer Mess at about 3.00 P.M. The Sentries of the Officer Mess saw the occurrence. The husband of the petitioner was on his Bolero vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abductors were in Army Uniform. The informant suspected the hand of Santosh Kumar and Raju Singh with whom her husband was on inimical terms. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Danapur as well as Station House Officer, Danapur police station. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that two F.I.R. named accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar Pandey and Raju Singh as well as four more persons, whose name figured in course of investigation have been arrested. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner earlier filed Criminal writ application in the nature of habeas corpus for recovery of her husband, who has been kidnapped since 11.04.2009 and for arrest of the accused persons. This Court after hearing the parties by order dated 20.05.2010 observed that any observation / direction may amount to interference with the investigation. This Court further 3 observed that we are satisfied that no further order is required to be passed. The petitioner ought to have mentioned about the filing and prayer made in the earlier writ application in the instant case. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the C.B.I. has handed over copy of letter dated 15.01.2010 received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Animal Husbandry Department Branch, Patna intimating that there is no need to take up the investigation of this case by the C.B.I., as no inter-state or International ramification are involved. Counsel for the State further submits that raid has been made in various States to recover and trace out the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. in this respect relies on paragraph 10 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P and Ors, reported in 2008(2) SCC 409 as well as a Constitution Bench decision of Hon’ble apex Court in case of State of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1476 particularly paragraph 46. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for handing over the case to the C.B.I. The State police has arrested First Information Report named accused persons and some others, whose name 4 figures in course of investigation. The State police has also made raid at various police station. However, as petitioner’s husband is still traceless, the police will make efforts to trace him out. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)