Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present application for a direction to the Special Court (C.B.I, cases) not to remand the petitioner in several cases enumerated in the petition as, according to the petitioner, allegations made in those cases, are the subject matter of investigation in Special Case No.43 of 1996, in which the petitioner has already been remanded and released on bail. In other words, it is the assertion of the petitioner that Special Case No.43 of 1996 contains the entire allegation against him and the allegations in other cases are fragmented or broken parts of the allegation made in the said case and the successive remands in other cases will amount to putting him behind the bar with regard to the same very allegation for which he has already been remanded and released on bail and as such the remand of the petitioner in other cases would be arbitrary and impermissible in law. 2. The petitioner was posted as a Budget and Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, from 16.8.1991 to 31.1.1996. He has now superannuated from service. A huge sum of money was systematically misappropriated by falsification of accounts and forging of documents in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. The matter was highlighted in news-papers. The F.I.Rs. were registered by the State Police to investigate the matter. Leaders of the Political Parties and other Public spirited persons and organizations approached this court for a direction to the C.B.I, to investigate the aforesaid cases of excess expendi-tures/drawals and misappropriation of public money. This court in the case of Sushil Kumar Modi V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1996(1) P.L.J.R. 561 directed the C.B.I, to enquire all cases of excess drawals and expenditures in the Department of Animal Husbandry during the period 1977-78 to 1995-96 and lodge cases where the withdrawals were found to be fraudulent in character and take the investigation to its logical end within the period specified therein. This court suspended the investigation in the cases instituted by the State Police. 3. This court suspended the investigation in the cases instituted by the State Police. 3. The State of Bihar challenged the aforesaid judgment before the apex court and the matter was disposed of by the apex court and the said judgment is reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 97 (SC) (State of Bihar V/s. Ranchi Zila Samta Party) and the apex court upheld the order of this Honble Court, but modified the order, whereby this court had suspended the investigation of the cases instituted by the State Police, and directed that the entire investigation shall stand transferred to the C.B.I. The C.B.I. was directed to take over the investigation already made by the State Police, inclusive of the F.I.Rs., arrests and attachments and deal appropriately therewith. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the apex court, in respect of 40 cases, which were registered by the State Police, the C.B.I, registered separate cases. Apart from the aforesaid cases, some more cases have also been registered by the C.B.I, and it was stated at the bar that at present about 45 cases have been registered by the C.B.I. with regard to the scam in the Animal Husbandry Department. 5. The petitioner is facing prosecution in 24 cases and it is stated that the charge-sheets have been submitted in most of the cases, except in Special Cases No.23/96, 43/96, 53/96 and 64/96. Special Case No.43 of 1996, arising out of R.C. No.42(A)/96 under sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2), read with 131(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the C.B.I. on the basis of the F.I.R. of Gardanibagh (Sachiwalaya) P.S. Case No.0061 /96 dated 14.2.1996, lodged by Dr.Narendra Prasad Singh, Deputy Director, Headquarter, Animal Husbandry, Patna. The allegation against the petitioner in the said case is that he was posted as Budget and Accounts Officer in the office of the Director, Animal Husbandry Department for a period of 3-4 years and, thereafter, he superannuated. He had issued fake and forged documents with regard to allotment of funds to the officials of the districts of Ranchi, Lohardaga, Gumla, Chaibasa, Singhbhum, Dumka, Hazaribagh, Godda, Sahebganj, Deoghar, Purnea and other places. By the fraudulent acts done by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the Animal Husbandry and other departments, a huge amount of Government money has been misappropriated. 6. By the fraudulent acts done by the petitioner in connivance with the officials of the Animal Husbandry and other departments, a huge amount of Government money has been misappropriated. 6. Apart from this, the petitioner is also facing prosecution in 23 cases, wherein he had either been named in the F.I.R. or he has been made an accused in the course of investigation. The said cases relate to the districts of Chaibasa, Godda, Ranchi, Purnea, Patna, Gumla, Bhagalpur and Singhbhum. The allegations in those cases are that the petitioner entered in the criminal conspiracy with other officials of the different districts of the Animal Husbandry Department and the suppliers and as a result of the said conspiracy, fake orders of allotment were issued by him and on the basis of which a huge amount of Government money was withdrawn by showing fake supplies. This was done systematically by falsification of accounts and forging documents. It is not necessary to state in details the allegations in each and every cases. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Case No.43 of 1996, wherein allegations have been made against the petitioner of issuance of fake orders with regard to different districts, as a result of which huge sum of Government money has been misappropriated, contains the entire allegations and the subsequent F.I.Rs. lodged with regard to the fraudulent withdrawals having taken place in different districts, wherein the petitioner has either been named as an accused or subsequently has been named as an accused during the course of investigation, contain broken or fragmentation part of the same allegation as made in Case No. 43 of 1996 and as such the remand of the petitioner in those cases is an abuse of the process of the court and that will amount to successive remands of the petitioner with regard to the same very allegation, which is impermissible in law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I, combatted the aforesaid submissions and submitted that out of the said 24 cases charge-sheets have been submitted in majority of cases and some cases are at the stage of investigation and as such it is not proper at this stage to express any opinion as to whether all the cases relate to the same allegations constituting one offence being parts of the same transaction or they are different offences. He further contended that the cases registered against the petitioner are with regard to the separate offences. Special Case No.43 of 1996 relates to issuance of fake orders in different districts, by which the amount in excess of the Budgetary provision was allotted to the different districts, whereas, in other cases filed against the petitioner the allegations are that he at different times and different places with the connivance of different sets of persons committed the crime alleged against him. The offences against the petitioner in all the cases are different and distinct and as such his remand in all the cases is permissible in law. 9. Admitted fact is that the investigation in Special Case No.43 of 1996 is still going on. In some other cases, wherein the petitioner is an accused, investigations are also going on. The question is as to whether this court will consider the allegations in different cases, appreciate the materials collected in each cases and will come to a conclusion as to whether the allegations in all the cases are one and the same and on that basis will hold that once the petitioner has been remanded in Special Case No.43 of 1996 being the main case, his remand in other cases is impermissible in law. 10. The State is the custodian of law and order. Crime detection is the function of the State through the Police department and the powerof the court to interfere with the aforesaid statutory right of the Police is very limited. In our law, it is the statutory duty of the Police to investigate the cognizable offence and bring offenders to book. During the course of investigation, the court has little role to play. It has power to pass order in aid of investigation; such as holding of T.I.Parade, recording of confessional statement or dying declaration or to grant bail. The unfettered right of the police cannot be interfered with lightly as it is likely to derail the investigation or to demoralize the police. This court can interfere with the investigation only when no cognizable case is made out on the basis of the allegations or the investigation is actuated by malafide etc. 11. The unfettered right of the police cannot be interfered with lightly as it is likely to derail the investigation or to demoralize the police. This court can interfere with the investigation only when no cognizable case is made out on the basis of the allegations or the investigation is actuated by malafide etc. 11. The Privy Council in case of Emperor V/s. Nazir Ahmad, reported in A.I.R. (32) Privy Council 18, held as follows:- "In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491, Criminal P.C., to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case, as the present, however, the courts functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. It has some times been thought that section 561A has given increased powers to the court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The sections no new powers, it only provides that those which the court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their lordships think, least it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code, and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act. No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation." 12. The same view has been reiterated by the apex court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. J.A.C. Saldanna, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 326. Paragraph no. 25 of the said judgment runs as follows:- "25. The same view has been reiterated by the apex court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. J.A.C. Saldanna, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 326. Paragraph no. 25 of the said judgment runs as follows:- "25. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence Is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the Police in its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate." When the case is at the initial stage of investigation this court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot make an observation on disputed question of facts on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. In this connection, reference may be made to the aforesaid case of A.C.Saldana (supra) as well as to the case of State of Bihar V/s. P.P.Sharma, reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. 11. 13. In this connection, reference may be made to the aforesaid case of A.C.Saldana (supra) as well as to the case of State of Bihar V/s. P.P.Sharma, reported in 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. 11. 13. Thus, at this stage determination of the question by this court on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties that all the cases registered against the petitioner form part of the same transaction amounting to only one offence is neither desirable nor permissible in law as any finding by this court at this stage with regard to the same matter will prejudice the parties and will also fetter the jurisdiction of the trial court, which has to decide this very question at a proper stage. 14. However, as the parties have addressed this court in detail on the point as stated above and the matter relates to the personal liberty of the petitioner, I am determining this question only for the purposes of deciding the point raised in this case. Any observation made or finding arrived at by this court with regard to this matter may not be treated as a final determination of the question as to whether the allegations in different cases are part of the same transaction constituting one offence or not? 15. There is an allegation of conspiracy also in all the cases. There may be single general conspiracy or there may be conspiracies. Conspiracy is defined under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, according to which it is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. The conspiracy may be of wider dimension or of a narrower dimension. The persons of a bigger conspiracy or groups of persons of general conspiracy may form separate smaller conspiracies having a similar general purpose with different set of persons. The common intention of the conspirators in such situation is to work for furtherance of the common design of smaller group only. The persons of a bigger conspiracy or groups of persons of general conspiracy may form separate smaller conspiracies having a similar general purpose with different set of persons. The common intention of the conspirators in such situation is to work for furtherance of the common design of smaller group only. The apex court in this connection in the case of Hussain Umar v. Dalipsinghji, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 45, held as follows:- "15....., Criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120A of the I.P.C. is an agreement by two or more persons to do or to cause to be done an illegal act which is not illegal by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a general conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accoplished. The. evil scheme may be promoted by a few, some may drop out and some may join at a later stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is broken up. The conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be a general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may from time to time be found expedient. New techniques may be invented and new means may be devised for advancement of the common plan. A general conspiracy must be distinguished from a number of secret conspiracies having a similar general purpose. Where different groups of persons co-operate towards their separate ends without any privity with each other, each combination costitutes a separate conspiracy. The common intention of the conspirators then is to work for furtherance of the common design of his group only." 16. The materials on record show that the cases registered against the petitioner, copies of which has been appended with the writ application, are with regard to the fraudulent drawals of huge money by the suppliers on the basis of fake orders issued by the officials of the Department of Animal Husbandry without supplying any material. The materials on record show that the cases registered against the petitioner, copies of which has been appended with the writ application, are with regard to the fraudulent drawals of huge money by the suppliers on the basis of fake orders issued by the officials of the Department of Animal Husbandry without supplying any material. The petitioner is alleged to have connived in the said matter also by issuing fake allotment orders. Special Case No.43 of 1996, which was registered earlier, is only with regards to issuance of fake orders by the petitioner showing allotment of fund to the different districts. Whereas other cases are with regard to misappropriation and defalcation of amount in distribution of money received in those districts. The petitioner is alleged to have connived with the district officials in the said transaction also. Prima facie, it appears that separate cases registered against the petitioner are with regard to different transactions. Only because in alt the cases, the petitioner is alleged to have conspired with other officials of the Animal Husbandry Department, as a result of which, a huge sum of public money has been misappropriated by falsification of accounts, it cannot be said that the same are part of the same transaction. 17. In one occurrence, the accused may commit several offences. If all the offences, form part of the same transaction, in that case the prosecution cannot be allowed to split up the investigation into several cases and remand the accused successively in one case after the other. However, if the accused is facing prosecution in several cases forming a different transaction or different cases, then the law permits successive remand. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of C.B.I. Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in 1992 S.C. 1768 and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ravi Sinha V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. No. 641 of 1996), disposed of on 11.10.1996 [1996(2) PLJR 814]. 18. In my view, none of the said cases supports the stand of the petitioner. (Cr.W.J.C. No. 641 of 1996), disposed of on 11.10.1996 [1996(2) PLJR 814]. 18. In my view, none of the said cases supports the stand of the petitioner. In Kulkarnis (supra), the question for determination was as to whether the petitioner, who was arrested and produced before a Magistrate, as required under section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can still be remanded to Police custody after expiry of the initial period of 15 days. The apex court held that an accused can be remanded to the Police custody within the period of first fifteen days only and, thereafter, he can be given only in judicial custody and not in Police custody. While deciding the said question as to whether a person having committed several offences in the same transaction, arrested in respect of the some offences and kept in Police custody for fifteen days can again be arrested and kept in Police custody for such period when during investigation his complicity in more serious cases is disclosed. The apex court held that during the investigation of the same occurrence if some serious offences are found to have been committed by the accused, then that does not authorise the Police to ask for a Police custody for a further period after expiry of the first fifteen days. If that would be permitted, then the Police can go on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further detention in police custody for a further period after expiry of the first fifteen days. This, in my view, will defeat the very object of section 167 of the Code. While saying so, the apex court clarified that such limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. It was held that if during the investigation of one case, the accused is alleged to be involved in other case not connected with the each case, then he can be formerly arrested and remanded in police custody or judicial custody. It was held as follows:- "However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. It was held as follows:- "However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require his detention in police custody .... occurrence constituting two different transactions give rise to two different cases and the exercise of power under section 167(1) and (2) should be consonance with the object underlying the said provision in which constitute two different cases. Investigation in one specific case cannot be the same as in the other. Arrest and detention in custody in the context of section 167(1) and (2) of the Code has to be truly viewed with regard to the investigation of that specific case in which the accused person has been taken into cusody." 19. Thus, in the case of different occurrences, successive remands are permissible. So far as the case of Ravi Sinha (supra) is concerned, in that case Ravi Sinha was facing prosecution in two cases Special Case No.25 of 1996 and Special Case No.55 of 1996. He challenged his remand in Special Case No.55 of 1996 on the ground that the allegations made in both the cases are one and the same and form part of the same transaction and as such this remand in the second case was impermissible in law. This court, after having gone through the facts of both the cases came to the conclusion that they relate to the same occurrence (transaction) and are not different occurrences. Both the allegations complained of were of the year 1992 so a separate trial was not necessary. The said case was decided purely on appreciation of the factual matters and no law was laid down in,that case supporting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 20. Shyam Behari Sinha, who is also an accused in Special Case No.43 of 1996 and other cases, filed Cr.W.J.C. No.184 of 1997 in this court challenging hi? successive remands in three cases as wholly unjustified as according to him, all the three cases relate to the same transaction. This court considered the matter and found that all the three cases were with regard to separate transactions. successive remands in three cases as wholly unjustified as according to him, all the three cases relate to the same transaction. This court considered the matter and found that all the three cases were with regard to separate transactions. It was further held in that case that Special Case No.43 of 1996 does not cover all the transactions, which were subsequently discovered with regard to which separate cases were lodged. This court further held that as the offences are alleged to have taker?" place at different places in different Police Stations and by different sets of accused persons, having different mode of committing crime, it cannot be said that all form part of the same transaction. It is relevant to quote paragraph no.15 of the said judgment of this court, which runs as follows : "Having regard to the allegation contained in the first information report in each of the cases, it is not possible to hold that the three cases constitute one offence and, therefore, are parts of the same transaction. So far as Special Case No.28 and 30 of 1996 are concerned, though they relate to the district of Hazaribagh, they relate to different periods i.and the accused persons are different There is similarity of facts. These cases, however, are quite different from Special Case No.43 of 1996. In the said case the allegation is only against the then Accounts and Budget Officer of Animal Husbandry Department, who had been signing false and fabricated allotment orders to the officers of the Department in the districts. On the basis of such false and fabricated allotment orders huge withdrawals were made. This case does not at all refer to the manner in which the supplies were made by different suppliersv and how payments were made to them without supplies being received. The report also does not deal with the withdrawal of huge amounts from the different Treasuries. No other accused has been mentioned by name in the first information report. It cannot be said on a reading of the first information report in Special Case No. 13 of 1996 that it covers all transactions which were subsequently discovered in connection with other cases on specified reports lodged at different places in different police stations. No other accused has been mentioned by name in the first information report. It cannot be said on a reading of the first information report in Special Case No. 13 of 1996 that it covers all transactions which were subsequently discovered in connection with other cases on specified reports lodged at different places in different police stations. It is not possible at this stage on the basis of the materials on record to hold that all the three cases constitute one occurrence and, therefore, form part of one transaction. In any event since the orders; impugned in this writ petition are not orders of remand, even if it were held that all the three cases constitute one transaction, no relief can be granted to thepetitioner who is in custody in connection with some other case." 21. Dr. K.M.prasad, who is also facing prosecution in some of the Animal Husbandry scam cases, challenged his successive remands and the learned Single Judge, relying upon Kulkarnis case (supra), reported in 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 543 held that the remand of the accused in different cases separately is not in breach of the provisions of section 167 of the Code. Other accused persons, including Krishna Mohan Prasad, also challenged their successive remands in breach of section 167 of the Code in Cr.Misc.No.1877© of 1996 and other analogous cases and this court held that in case of different occurrences successive remand is permissible under section 167 of the Code. The said judgment is reported in M/s Chotanagpur Cattle Feed Supply & Co. V/s. C.B.I., 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 957 . A special leave petition against the said order filed by said Krishna Mohan Prasad was dismissed by the apex court. 22. For the purpose of this case, I have already held that the allegations made against the petitioner in different cases are not part of one occurrence/transaction on the other hand, they constitute separate offences and as such the remand of the petitioner in other cases is permissible in view of the provisions contained in section 167 of the Code. In that view of the matter, no direction can be given restricting the C.B.I, to take steps for remand of the petitioner in the cases pending against him nor the Special Courts be prevented to remand the petitioner in other cases, wherein he is facing prosecution. In that view of the matter, no direction can be given restricting the C.B.I, to take steps for remand of the petitioner in the cases pending against him nor the Special Courts be prevented to remand the petitioner in other cases, wherein he is facing prosecution. It is clarified that the question whether in a particular case, the Special Court will remand the petitioner, is to be decided by it on the basis of the materials produced before it by the C.B.I, in terms of the statutory provisions. 23. In the result, there is no merit in this case application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. I.P.Singh, J. 24 I agree.