SARITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Bijay Kumar, husband of this petitioner, while was coming out of the Eylex Multiplex, situated at Hinoo after watching a movie on 21.6.2008, was apprehended by the police alongwith one Kargil Yadav on the pretext that he is one of the associates of Kargil Yadav, having criminal antecedents, and this fact was reported in the newspapers, cutting of which has been annexed with the writ application, but after two days, an F.I.R. was lodged by the Officer In -charge, Chanho Police Station putting allegation that when he laid a raid alongwith the police party in a forest, they apprehended one Kargil Yadav, a member of banned organization called J -L.T. as well as Bijay Kumar, husband of this petitioner, and on search being made, both of them were found in possession of the firearms as well as some money, which has been alleged to be the money collected as extortion and on that basis, FIR was registered as Chanho P. S. Case No. 54 of 2008, but this allegation gets falsified from the newspapers' report, which was published on the very next day when Kargil Yadav was apprehended alongwith his friends near Eylex Multiplex. As a matter of fact, Bijay Kumar, husband of the petitioner, had absolutely no connection whatsoever with any of the members of the extremist group and thereby, the police has wrongly implicated the petitioner's husband and has wrongly branded him as a member of extremist party and under these situations, prayer has been made by the petitioner to hand over the investigation to any other independent agency so that it may bring the real fact on the surface.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, do not find it a tit case for handing over the investigation to any other independent agency when the investigation has already been completed by the District police,