Md. Islam v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Bihar At Patna And ORS

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.906 of 2014 (4) dt.13-05-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.906 of 2014 ====================================================== Md. Islam, Son of Late Salim, resident of Village- Madhuban Gate, Police Station- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar At Patna.

2. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Pramandal at Muzaffarpur.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Pramandal at Muzaffarpur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

5. The Deputy Superintedent of Police, Pupri, District- Sitamarhi.

6. The Officer-in-Charge of Bajpatti Police Station, District- Sitamarhi.

7. The Investigation Officer of Bajpatti Police Station Case No. 105/12 dated 28. 07. 2012.

.... .... Respondents.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Raju Giri, G.P. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to G.P.10.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for arresting the accused persons in connection with Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 105 of 2012 registered for offence under Sections 302, 201, 363, 366(A), 367, 368, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code and completing the investigation. However, going to the allegation made in the F.I.R. the allegation made makes out a cognizable offence which gives indefensible the right to the police to investigate the case and this

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.906 of 2014 (4) dt.13-05-2015 Court at this stage is not required to interfere with investigation and hence it neither proper nor prudence to give any direction for arrest.

So far F.I.R. having been lodged in the year 2012 since then two years has been elapsed, but the charge sheet has not been submitted.

Learned counsel for the State had filed a supplementary counter affidavit and in paragraph 7 and 8 it has been mentioned that S.D.P.O. has supervised the case and further submitted final progress report and has recommended for submission for final report and has finally approved the recommendation of the S.D.P.O., Pupri directed the I.O. to submit Final Form. Hence in view of the fact, the petition is disposed off with a direction that I.O. shall submit charge sheet within three months. m.p.

(Gopal Prasad, J) U T