IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.808 of 2009 KANCHAN KUMAR @ KANCHAN KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Arun Kumar, Bipin Kumar For the State : Mr.G.P.10 4 13.7.2010 The petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to act fairly and impartially in the investigation of the Naokothi P.S. Case No.44 of 2009, dated 11.5.2009 under sections 448, 386, 302/34 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act as well as sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. The petitioner further prays for a declaration that his implication in the instant case is wholly unwarranted and malicious. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though so many persons are named in the F.I.R., the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He submits that the police is having grudge against the petitioner, as he had earlier moved the court in another case against the high handedness of the police officials in Mufassil P.S. Case No.324 of 2007. In the aforesaid case the court noticed that in spite of attaching the property of one Kanchan Rai son of Ram Prakash Rai, the police has attached his property as he had common name with the aforesaid Kanchan Rai. He further submits that the police was forcing the informant to identify the petitioner as an accused. However, they did not succumb to the pressure of the police. Nevertheless the police submitted charge sheet against him. When informant 2 KHAN came to know about it, he also sworn an affidavit to the aforesaid effect and filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai stating that petitioner is innocent and the police was forcing him to name the petitioner also as an accused. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been arrested as there was some material against him and charge sheet has also been submitted against him. As charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, the first prayer of petitioner for an impartial investigation has become infructuous. Now that the charge sheet has been submitted then under writ jurisdiction it would be inappropriate for this court to hold at this stage that implication of petitioner was malicious. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent order in the proceeding, it would be open to him to challenge the same before an appropriate authority. With the aforesaid liberty, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)