VIRENDRA SARAN, J. Badri Narain Tiwari is in Jail in connection with Crime No. 68 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 and 120-B, I. P. C. of P. S. Mahoba Kanth, District Hamirpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the infor mant and the learned State counsel at length. 3. The question of bail apart, a perusal of the case diary and other materials placed on the record raise many question marks in my mind regarding fairness of the investigation in this case by the local police of Hamirpur. Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, unfortunate brother of deceased Brijendra Tiwari made specific allegations in the First Information Report that the deceased had earned the wrath of Sri Surendra Singh Yadav, Station Officer, P. S. Mahoba Kanth for the reason that the former had complained to the higher authorities that Sri Yadav was in leaque with criminals operating in the area and that Sri Yadav had extended threats of murder to the deceased. The report goes on to State that the Station Officer had conspired with the applicant and the other co-accused of this case and got the murder committed. These allega tions, true or false required a thorough investigation. 4. By the order of the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur the investi gation of this case was entrusted to Sri B. P. Shukla, S. H. O. Mahoba. Sri Shukla was on a raxors edge. One hand he had the responsibility of the unpleasant task of investigating a charge of conspiracy to murder against his own colleague who, if not a favourite, was in good books of the High ups in the police administration as, he according to the information given to the Court by either side, now holds the prized post of Inspector Kotwali, Hamir pur. On the other hand Sri Shukla was being accused by the complainants side of being partisan towards his colleague, Sri Yadav. 5. I have perused the case diary carefully and find that much that was required to be investigated in a case of this nature remains to be done. No effort appears to have been made to collect evidence, one way or the other, regarding allegations that Sri Yadav was in leaque with the criminals of the area and his connections, if any, with the accused of the present case. Investi gation on these points is only skin deep. No effort appears to have been made to collect evidence, one way or the other, regarding allegations that Sri Yadav was in leaque with the criminals of the area and his connections, if any, with the accused of the present case. Investi gation on these points is only skin deep. When there were allegations against the Station Officer himself in all fairness the investigation ought to have been entrusted to some superior officer. The case diary shows that at one stage the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur had entrusted investigation to Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer, Mahoba, but it was re-entrusted to Sri Shukla after some time. In the circumstances it was felt necessary to call for a counter-affidavit from the State. Sri Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur has filed counter-affidavit in which he states that Sri Shukla was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 4-5-1992. Hardly a couple of days had passed when he proceeded on leave and hence on 7-5-1992 the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur entrusted the investigation to Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer. The counter-affidavit goes on to state that since Sri Shukla had reported back, the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 12-5-92 again entrusted investigation of this case to Sri Shukla. Annexure C. A.-2, filed with the counter-affidavit is the order dated 5-5-1992 by which Sri Hira Lal was entrusted with the inves tigation of this case. There is no mention in Annexure C. A.-2 that the investigation has been transferred to the Circle Officer because Sri Shukla was proceeding on leave. Curiously enough the order, by which the investigation was laken from the hands of Sri Hira Lal, Circle Officer and re-entrusted to Sri B. P. Shukla, has not been annexed with the counter-affidavit. The reason for this change is also not disclosed in the case diary anywhere. The explana tion given in the counter-affidavit of Sri Vikram Singh appears to be far from reality. I may also mention here that the trend of the counter-affidavit of Sri Vikram Singh is to put up a well determined opposition to the case of the complainant. 6. Sri B. P. Sukhla also appeared in the court and he stated that there is a mention in the case diary that there was a talk in the village that the real murderer was Peer Bux. 6. Sri B. P. Sukhla also appeared in the court and he stated that there is a mention in the case diary that there was a talk in the village that the real murderer was Peer Bux. Sri B. P. Shukla was asked if he had interrogated a single person of the village regarding this talk but the answered in the negative. If there was any such talk going on in the village it became the duty of the investigator to interrogated the villagers even if there were not prepared to come out and give evidence in court. It was immaterial whether they admitted or denied such talk. 7. Along with the counter-affidavit, filed by the complainant, an appli cation dated 6-2-1992, allegedly given by the deceased Brijendra Tiwari, has been annexed, in which several allegations were made against one Sant Ram Tiwari and it was mentioned that there was a chain of burglaries in and around Village Teiya. It was further stated in the said application that the applicant held a gun licence with a fake address of Jhansi. Another application was annexed with the said counter-affidavit, making complaint against the Station Officer, Mahob Kanth and further stating that on the support of the Station Officer, the applicant was able to construct a house overnight on the land of Gram Samaj. In the counter-affidavit, filed by Sri Vikram Singh, it is stated that these appli cations dated 6-2-1992 and 30-3- 1992 could not be traced out by him. Follow ing words in the counter-affidavit of Sri Vikram Singh are material: "the deponent is of the opinion that the averments made by com plainant in this regard are absolutely baseless and false and made with some oblique motive. " 8. The tenor of the counter-affidavit unfurls bias of the police towards the complainant. With the supplementary counter-affidavit, filed by the complainant, photo copies of certain news papers of the local dailies, viz. , Karmyug Prakash published from Orai and dainik Jagran published from Jhansi and aaj published from Kanpur have been annexed in which news items appeared regarding thefts and voice was raised for the transfer of the Station Officer. With the supplementary counter-affidavit, filed by the complainant, photo copies of certain news papers of the local dailies, viz. , Karmyug Prakash published from Orai and dainik Jagran published from Jhansi and aaj published from Kanpur have been annexed in which news items appeared regarding thefts and voice was raised for the transfer of the Station Officer. Thus, the counter-affidavit, filed by Sri Vikram Singh, Deputy Super intendent of Police, Hamirpur does not depict the correct picture and the allegations made in the complaints dated 6-2-1992 and 30-3-1992 which have been annexed with the counter-affidavit of the complaint are more than mere gossip. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the investigation should be made by some independent agency. 9. I have also heard learned counsel on either side on the desirability of directing an investigation by the C. I. D. In my opinion such an order can be passed by the High Court in its inbuild inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. as also in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sno moto. 10. The question of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was considered in the case of S. Barrow v. State of U. P. , AIR 1958 All 154 (para 1b ). A Division Bench of this Court observed that such a power can be exercised suo moto. In a very recent case of M[s. Badruddin and Party v. Stale, 1992 UPLBEC 639 another Division Bench of this Court while considering a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, exercised its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution suo moto. The Supreme Court in the case of M. V. Elizabeth and others v. Harwan Investment, 1992 JT (2) 65 has held that the High Court being a superior court of record is a court of unlimited jurisdiction and has also the jurisdiction to determine its own powers. In M. V. Elizabeths case (supra) the Supreme Court negatived the contention that the High Court in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction can not attach a foreignship, when it appeared in Indian waters, in the absence of a specific power to that effect conferred by an enactment. In para 68 of its judgment the Supreme Court observed : "the High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. In para 68 of its judgment the Supreme Court observed : "the High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. " 11. In para 72 of its judgment he Supreme Court reiterated the follow ing observations made in its earlier decision in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 1991 JT (3) SC 617 : 1992 JIC 72 (SC) : ". . . . . . The Constitution has assigned a new role to the Constitutional Courts to ensure rule of law in the country. . . . . . Time has come to have a fresh look at the old precedents and to lay down law with the changed perceptions keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution. . . . . . " 12. Co-existence of this Courts jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code is well recognised. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 (Para 108) : (1990) 2 JIC 997 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised in given circumstances. This case has been followed in a very recent case of Janta Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary, 1992 JT (5) 214 (Para 136 ). In the case of Zulfiqar Beg alias Babey, 1990 ACC 687 ; 1991 JIC 435 (All), Honble Girdhar Malviya, J. directed C. I. D. investigation in the exercise of this Courts jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. There are a number of decisions where the courts have directed C. B. I. investi gation in appropriate cases. Reference may be made to the case of Gudalalure v. Union of India, 1992 (1) Crime 2 (SC) : 1992 JIC 278 (SC), in which the Supreme Court directed the investigation to be made by the C. B. I. 13. Adverting to the merits of the bail application, the case of the applicant for bail will have to be considered regardless of the fact that the police is hostile to the complainant. Adverting to the merits of the bail application, the case of the applicant for bail will have to be considered regardless of the fact that the police is hostile to the complainant. The present is a case of night shooting. I have gone through the case diary and other materials on the record and I am of the opinion that a case for bail is made out. I would not like to express any further opinion on merits lest it may prejudice the trial one way or the other. 14. In the result, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand and two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on the condition that he will report in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur every forth night. While releasing the applicant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall fix a date for the next appearance of the applicant and on each subsequent date a fresh for appearance shall be given. 15. It is further directed that the State Government shall entrust investi gation of the present case (Crime No. 68 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, J49, 302, 120-B and 506, IPC, P. S. Mahob Kanth, District Hamirpur, to the C. I. D. In case a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the court the learned Magistrate concerned shall permit the C. I. D. to further investigate the case. The C. I. D. shall submit its report within four months to the court concerned. The C. I. D. shall be free to investigate and this judgment shall not be inter preted to mean that there is any direction to file a charge-sheet or final report against any one. 16. The case diary has already been returned to the learned Public Prosecutor. 17. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. for necessary action and another copy to the Superinten dent of police, Hamirpur. Bail granted. .