YOGENDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to conduct proper investigation of Laheri P.S. Case No. 377 of 2018 registered on 16/11/2018 under Ss. 302, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of the case is not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner. He contended that the investigation must unearth the truth and the real culprit may be brought to book and the person falsely dragged in the case may not be harassed. He urged that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been made an accused in the case for satisfying the grudge of the informant with some vested interest. In support of his submission that the investigation is not proceeding in proper direction, he has referred to the contents of various paragraphs of the case diary in his petition. On query, as to how he could know about the contents of the statements made during investigation when the investigation is still continuing, he submitted that when the bail application of the petitioner was moved in the court below the case diary was called for by the court below. At that stage, he had occasion to see the case diary. That is how, he knows what has been stated by the witnesses in different paragraphs. He further contended that the truth of the matter is that after hearing the sound of firing, the petitioner came at the place of occurrence and saw the deceased in an injured condition. Since he was a close friend of his younger son and was also known to the petitioner, he immediately took him to hospital for treatment on a two wheeler with the help of another person. He also informed the family members of the deceased from the hospital about the occurrence. However, before the family members could reach, he left the hospital. These facts are verifiable from the recordings made in CCTV cameras installed at various places as well as at the place of occurrence, but the investigating agency has not collected any CCTV footage and has wrongly believed upon the statement of the informant, who has alleged that at the instance of the petitioner, the co-accused Nitesh Kumar @ Rikki Singh, who happens to be his son opened fire causing fatal injury to his cousin brother as a result of which he died. He contended that a direction is required to be issued by this Court to the Investigating Officer to examine the CCTV footage in order to find out the truth before the closing the investigation.