IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.838 of 2011 Reyaj Ahmad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors Advocate for petitioner:- Uday Kumar. Advocate for State:- Mrs. Jahan Ara A.C. to A.A.G. V. ----------- 03 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to AAG-5. Informant, Block Development Officer of Parihar Block, became victimized of mob frenzic in the background for non-availability of suitable treatment against the snake biting for which written report was filed wherein the petitioner was named as an accused along with others. The aforesaid written report laid to institution of Parihar P.S. Case No. 86/2010, G.R. No. 1338/2010. In due course of time, a development cropped up wherein the Informant had filed a petition before the investigating authority exonerating the petitioner. Meanwhile, there has been prayer made by I.O. before the C.J.M., followed with issuance at non bailable warrant of arrest (issued against the petitioner) which has caused an annoyance to the petitioner resulting filing of instant writ petition having with other ancillary prayers. Whatever submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that tantamount to have an order from this Court directing the investigating authority to exonerate petitioner even 2 during course of investigation from the column of accused and for that submitted that apart from having petition filed by the informant, he himself made representation before superior police officials who have had favoured his contention. Also submitted that petition has got concrete ground of alibi. The learned counsel for the State has prayed for adjournment for filing counter affidavit. The role of supervising authority is not defined under Cr. P.C. specifically but, have identification under the Bihar Police Manual. Be that as it may, the hierarchy of police stood only for proper identification but so far their recognition under law is concerned, they stood under same category. When the superior police officials have took the grievances of petitioner at their end as per Annexure-4 (at page-18) showing that the Regional I.G. had directed to S.P. to take proper step in this regard then in that event, the matter still remains at the side of the investigating authority. Usually, the Court is forbidden to transgress its limit in encroaching upon the area exclusively allotted to police by way of investigation unless and until there happens to be some sort of exigency. So far matter of alibi is concerned it is a matter to be ascertained and proved by factual aspect. Moreover, the present scenario did not make out a favourable plot to concede with the prayer of the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not 3 find any merit, consequent thereupon instant writ petition is rejected. Kamlesh (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)