Kameshwar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary, Home, Department, Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.111 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2016 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Kameshwar Mahto S/o Gogal Mahto, resident of Village- Amaitha Mangosar, P.S.- Saraiya (Jaitpur O.P.), Dist- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Home, Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Zone, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 6.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur West, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 7.

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. 8.

The Officer In-charge, Saraiya Police Station- Muzaffarpur. 9.

Sri Sanjay Pathak, The Investigating Officer, Presently posted as S.H.O., Jaitpur O.P. Saraiya Police State, District-Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr.Mankeshwar Tiwary, A.C. to A.A.G.-3.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-01-2020 This application is for direction to the respondents to change the Investigating Officer of Saraiya P.S.Case No.187 of 2016 and to conduct impartial investigation of the case. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have clearly stated that investigation has already been

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.111 of 2017(4) dt.10-01-2020 2/2 completed and chargesheet against four named accused person have already been filed on 26.02.2017.

Considering the aforesaid statement of the respondents, the prayer of the petitioner is infructuous now. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T