JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The offence which the Petitioner is involved is one u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.7.1995 while Birendra Kumar Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was moving in a local train, the Petitioner and Ors. being variously armed, rushed inside the compartment, brought out the deceased, brutally assaulted him causing multiple injuries and threw him near a bush. The deceased was then brought to the nearby Public Health Centre for treatment. The attending physician sent a casualty memo to Delanga Police Station. Ultimately the deceased succumbed to the injuries, whereupon a written report was lodged on 15.7.1995 at Delang Police Station. For two years the police kept the F.I.R. in cold storage and did not take any action in accordance with law. Ultimately the State Crime Branch took "Up the investigation, in course of which the Petitioner and Ors. 'involved in the incident were apprehended. 2. Shri Rath, learned Counsel for: Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner's nick name is Dhoba and is a resident of village Muliapada, whereas one Dhoba of village Jagadalpur has been arraigned as the accused in the F.I.R. Therefore, the Petitioner being no way involved in the alleged assault to the deceased, his prayer for bail should be allowed. Shri Rath has further contended that 'investigation having commenced after two years of the incident, serious doubt arises about the fairness of the investigation. 3. Sri S.K. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel fairly concedes that Delanga Police did take no steps though F.I.R. was -lodged in 1995. He however, contends that no sooner the case was entrusted to the State Crime Branch, investigation commenced in course of which persons acquainted with the facts of the case were examined and their statements were recorded. From the available evidence, it prima facie shows that the present Petitioner was involved in the brutal assault to the deceased. In support of such submission, he refers to the statements of Purna Chandra Sahu and Bibhuti Bhusan Das. 4. This case is a glaring example how the persons involved in heinous crime were allowed by the police to move freely and fearlessly as if they are above law. It appears, instead of acting as saviour, the police shamelessly extended his helping hand to the offenders. 4. This case is a glaring example how the persons involved in heinous crime were allowed by the police to move freely and fearlessly as if they are above law. It appears, instead of acting as saviour, the police shamelessly extended his helping hand to the offenders. Would it not create an impression in the mind of the citizens that investigative machinery, one of the institutions of criminal justice system gives shelter and renders protection to the wealthy and influential persons involved in serious offences? This is certainly not a good sign for an orderly society. 5. Coming to the case in hand, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the materials collected during investigation, in may opinion, it would be a misplaced sympathy, if discretion is exercised in favour of the Petitioner and he is allowed to be released on bail. 6. Resultantly, prayer for bail is refused and the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed