IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1276 of 2010 Brij Nandan Prasad, son of late Ram Chandra Sah, Resident of village-Belsand, Ward No. 3, P.S. Belsand, District-Sitamarhi. ……petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Muzaffarpur Police Division, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, District-Sitamarhi. 5. The Officer-In-Charge, Sitamarhi, Police Station, District- Sitamarhi. 6. The Superintendent of Police Crime investigation Department, Bihar at Patna. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Crime Investigation Department Bihar at Patna. ….Respondents. ----------- 04. 01.08.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and informant. The petitioner is an accused in Sitamarhi Police Station Case No. 430 of 2008 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that investigation of the case even after handing over to the Crime Investigation Department, ( C.I.D) Government of Bihar is not being properly investigated with the result, the investigation is still pending and by order dated 28.09.2010, non-bailable warrants of arrest against the accused persons including the petitioner were issued. The learned counsel submits that the non-bailable warrant of arrest could not have been issued since during investigation the warrant of arrest cannot be issued and that too without considering its justification. In other words, the warrant of arrest should not be issued mechanically. The learned counsel appearing for the State as also informant submits that the investigation is being properly conducted by the C.I.D after the same was handed over for investigation, in view of the order of this Court dated 28.04.2009 passed by in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1228 of 2008 filed by the widow of the deceased. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ application directed that the Senior Officer Crime Branch C.I.D. to conduct the investigation of the case and see that the accused person of the aforesaid Sitamarhi P.S. case No. 430 of 2008 are apprehended and produced before the court concerned with further direction that the report regarding the investigation should be filed every month to the court below concerned, where the case is pending. It is further submitted that the investigation is properly conducted. The counsel appearing for the informant submits that after completion of the investigation police report be submitted without delay. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits, in the light of the submissions made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner is not co- operating in the investigation. Considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner as also informant both are the sons sought a similar grievances that the investigation is still pending. In the circumstances, this Court of the opinion that the investigation of the aforesaid case be completed expeditiously without unnecessary delay and upon completion of the investigation police report be submitted forthwith. As regards the grievance of the petitioner with respect to the issuance of warrant of arrest, this Court upon considering the submissions made in the counter affidavit as also the aforesaid order of this Court, is of the opinion that the warrant of arrest has been issued after due consideration and that cannot be said to be mechanically. Considering the above, I find no merit in this writ application the same is accordingly dismissed. Devendra/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)