Md. Jamil v. The State Of Bihar Through The Director General Of Police, Government Of Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 137 of 2017 Arising out of P.S. Case No. - null Year - null Thana - null District - SUPAUL =========================================================== Md. Jamil, Son of Md. Safeel, Resident of village - Rampur, P.O. - Nemuwan, P.S. and District - Supaul, Bihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The Home Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa.

5. The District Magistrate, Supaul.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul.

7. The Dy. S.P. Supaul.

8. The Officer in Charge, Supaul Police Station, District - Supaul

9. Investigating Officer of Supaul P.S. Case No. 127/2014 namely Kedar Nath Singh (A.S.I.) Police Station - Supaul, District - Supaul .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Partha Sarthi, G.P.IV =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-04-2017 Counter affidavit has been filed by the State which is kept on the record.

The petitioner is accused in Supaul Police Station Case No. 127 of 2014. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of mandamus commanding the State Police Officials to further investigate the aforesaid case as further investigation would reveal the infirmity and falsity of the prosecution case.

The counter affidavit of the State reveals that further

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.137 of 2017 dt.20-04-2017 2/2 investigation is already closed.

The petitioner submits that trial is going on. The petitioner is at liberty to bring the evidences of his defence at the stage of defence evidence. Moreover, the petitioner would always be at liberty to challenge the deficiency in the prosecution case at the stage of trial, therefore, no purpose would be served by giving any further direction for further investigation of the case.

Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of. (Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 01.05.2017 Transmission Date 01.05.2017