JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction on the part of the police authority and investigating agency not to trace out one Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra, who is stated to be a reputed businessman at Keonjhar, Orissa and also stated to have been associated with large number of institutions and employer of several hundred of persons. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and Petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law of said Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra (hereinafter called 'Rashmi'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Rashmi is missing from Bhubaneswar since 27.05.2007 afternoon. The matter was reported to the Saheed Nagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 28.5.2007 with a statement that a demand of Rs. 2 Crores had been made by the abductors for releasing Rashmi. Police did not take any action in the matter diligently and promptly. It is not known as to whether Rashmi is alive or dead. There is complete uncertainty in this regard. One of the police officer made statement to the media that Rashmi was alive. In the meantime, a period of more than one and half years has elapsed, but no clue about Rashmi is found out by the police, nor there is any certainty that he is alive. Hence this writ petition has been filed as a hebeas corpus petition to secure the presence of Mr. Rashmi and to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 3. Mr. Ashok Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has submitted that the police is in collusion with the accused and it not making proper investigation. The then Superintendent of Police, Bolangir had detected the root of the crime. However, he was not permitted to proceed with the investigation further and bad been transferred immediately. The Petitioners are harassed, humiliated, exploited and looted, because the administration is not helping them. Petitioners had been forced to mortgage their immovable properties. They had been getting threat to their lives. They have no faith in the Orissa Police as it is not investigating the case properly rather it had been protecting the accused. The high officials of the police authorities are accused being close associates of the criminal world and abettors of criminal activities in the State of Orissa. They had been getting threat to their lives. They have no faith in the Orissa Police as it is not investigating the case properly rather it had been protecting the accused. The high officials of the police authorities are accused being close associates of the criminal world and abettors of criminal activities in the State of Orissa. Hence, this matter should be handed over to the CBI for investigation and the CBI be directed to search Rashmi and produce him before this Court. 4. Mr. P. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has submitted that without any rhyme and reason scandalous allegations have been made against the police administration without naming any person whatsoever. Such allegations demoralise the entire police force. In case Petitioners had any doubt, they should have disclosed the names of the officials and impleaded them by name. Opposite parties had made all attempts to solve the mystery and tried to find out Rashmi and it is not a case of inaction in their part. After FIR had been lodged, the investigating agency made all possible attempts to solve the case and left no stone unturned. Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and started the investigation immediately. He examined the complainant and other witnesses, recorded their statements u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. Messages regarding the commission of crime were sent through out the State. Information was furnished to all the concerned officers to locate and recover the victim as well as vehicle in which he was travelling. The Investigating Officer made contact with BSNL and Airtel for supply of call details so that the movement of accused could be traced. On 29.5.2007 the Investigating Officer along with other police personnel went to Banaras and other suspected places to nab the criminals and rescue the victim. Raids had been conducted at Dhanbad, Ranchi, Jamsedpur, Kolkata and other places to rescue the victims and nab the culprits. Upon getting reliable information the investigating agency proceeded to Dhanbad on 2.6.2007 and recovered the vehicle i.e. one Innova Car bearing Regd. No. OR-05AA-0011 in which the victim had been travelling. The vehicle was found abandoned at Dhanbad railway station. He also recovered two unidentified male dead bodies at Sonahat and Tamar P.S. of Ranchi district in the State of Jharkhand. One of the dead bodies was having gunshot injury. No. OR-05AA-0011 in which the victim had been travelling. The vehicle was found abandoned at Dhanbad railway station. He also recovered two unidentified male dead bodies at Sonahat and Tamar P.S. of Ranchi district in the State of Jharkhand. One of the dead bodies was having gunshot injury. The relatives of Naba Kishore Mahanta identified that one dead body was of the driver of Rashmi. Other dead body was recovered with 75% burn injury. A silver ring with white stone and a Tabiz were recovered from the spot. Relatives of Rashmi who had accompanied the Investigating Officer identified the above articles to be of the victim Rashmi. However, they could not identify that dead body because of extensive burning. To investigate the matter further, DMA materials were collected from the dead body and sent to CFSL, Kolkata along with samples taken from his relatives for DNA test. However, the CFSL, Kolkata expressed its inability to conduct the test on the ground that the sample taken from the dead body had been highly degraded and thus genetic profile could not be prepared for comparison with other samples. Thereafter, further attempt was made and the DNA materials of aforesaid dead body was sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for DNA test to ascertain whether the same was the dead body of Rashmi or not. The CFSL, Hyderabad has confirmed it. Thus the possibility of murder of the victim cannot be doubted. It has further been submitted by Mr. Panda that Investigating Officer obtained mobile phone call details from the service providers, which provided valuable clues in the case. Two accused, namely, Julu ' Md. Salim and Sanjaya ' Bhabani Shankar Naik were arrested. One Indigo and one Maruti car were seized from the said accused persons as the investigating officer doubted that said vehicles had been utilized for commission of the crime. Some other accused, namely, Raju ' Istak Khan, Ganapati Ray, Jajati Keshari Biswala, Smt. Gayatri Biswala, Babuli ' Sarabudin Khan, Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, Chunei ' Nasir Akhtar succeeded in extorting money from the victim's family to return Rashmi alive from their custody. All the aforesaid persons have been rounded up and have been charge sheeted in this case. One Sk. Hyder suspected to be the kingpin of the crime has also been charge sheeted. All the aforesaid persons have been rounded up and have been charge sheeted in this case. One Sk. Hyder suspected to be the kingpin of the crime has also been charge sheeted. The investigation is still going on and investigating officer is making all possible attempts to arrest other persons also. One Mr. Himansu Lal, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Bolangir arrested some criminals involved in this case and he had disclosed that certain accused had made confession that they had killed Rashmi and Naba Kishore Mahanta with other accused. The learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar has been requested for orders to keep the investigation open because the result of the DNA test had been awaited and vide Memo No. 3220 dated 8.9.2008, SDJM, Bhubaneswar has passed the order for commitment of the case for trial against the charge sheeted accused. Since the authorities of police administration have been investigating the case properly, allegations made against the police officers are baseless, the petition is fallacious. Thus petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The wild and scandalous allegations have been made against the high officials of the Police Department, branding them to be the accused in the case, without impleading either of them by name and placing any material on record to substantiate the same. 7. The issue of "malus animus" was considered by the Apex Court in Tara Chand Khatri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others wherein it was held that the Court would be justified in refusing to carry on investigation into the allegation of mala fides, if necessary particulars of the charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the writ petition and burden of establishing mala fide lies very heavily on the person who alleges it and there must be sufficient material to establish malus animus. 8. Similarly, in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another the Supreme Court observed as under: Secondly, we must not also over-look that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it..... 8. Similarly, in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another the Supreme Court observed as under: Secondly, we must not also over-look that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it..... The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and other, not because of any special status.... but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. 9. In M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS Vs. State of Karnataka and others the Supreme Court observed that the Court may "draw a reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded and established. But such inference must be based on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain in the realm of insinuation, surmise or conjecture." 10. In N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others the Supreme Court has held that "the inference of mala fides should be drawn by reading in between the lines and taking into account the attendant circumstances." 11. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material. (Vide Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ; Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others, ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. D.N. Prasad; Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, ; Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, ; Kiran Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Etc., ; Netai Bag and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, ; and M/s. Samant and Another Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange and Others, ). 12. In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Ors. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, ; Kiran Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Etc., ; Netai Bag and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, ; and M/s. Samant and Another Vs. Bombay Stock Exchange and Others, ). 12. In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 330 , the Apex Court examined the issue of bias and mala fide and observed as under: Whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness- bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word 'malice' which in common acceptation means and implies 'spite' or 'ill will'. One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice and is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there was existing a bias or a mala fide move which results in the miscarriage of justice.... In almost all legal inquiries, 'intention as distinguished from motive is the all-important factor' and in common parlance a malicious act stands equated with an intentional act without just cause or excuse. (Emphasis added). 13. In First Land Acquisition Collector and Others Vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and Another, ; and Jasvinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others the Apex Court held that burden of proving mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal obligation to place specific materials before the Court to substantiate the said allegations. 14. It is also the settled legal proposition that in case allegations of mala fide are made against any person he is to be impleaded by name, otherwise the allegations cannot be considered. (Vide State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, Dr. J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 326 ; All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; and I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, .) 15. In Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, Dr. J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 326 ; All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; and I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, .) 15. In Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Apex Court has held that the allegation of mala fide has to be specifically made and the person against whom such allegations are made has to be impleaded and in his absence such allegations cannot be taken into consideration. 16. In the present case the Petitioners miserably failed to establish any mala fide against any of the officer whatsoever nor any officer has been impleaded by name. In such a fact situation, the allegation of mala fide do not required to be considered at all. 17. Further, the counter affidavit was filed on 26.9.2008, but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to rebut the averments made there under. We have also examined the DNA report submitted by the CFSL, Kolkata and CFSL, Hyderabad. The report of the CFSL, Hyderabad dated 27.10.2008 contained the observations as under: Observation: (a) The thigh bone marked as Exhibit-3 is of human male origin. (b) One of the alleles in the genetic profile generated for Exhibit-3 (source thigh bone) are similar to one of the alleles in the genotype profile of Exhibit-2 liquid blood (source Malathi Barik) (c) The non-maternal alleles in the genetic profile for Exhibit-3 (source thigh bone) are similar to one of the alleles in the genotype profile of Exhibit-1 liquid blood (source Ramchandra Barik). (d) The Y-STR profile generated for Exhibit-1 liquid blood (source Ramchandra Barik) and Exhibit-3 (source thigh bone) were identical. (e) The probability of Ramchandra Barik (source Exhibit-1) and Malathi Barik (source Exhibit-2) contributing the paternal and maternal alleles respective is 99.999% than any other person at random. Conclusion: On the basis of the above observation it can be opined that - The thigh bone marked as Exhibit-3 belongs to the male biological offspring of the couple Mr. Ramchandra Barik and Mrs. Malathi Barik. 18. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the investigation had been made in a correct perspective and all attempts had been made. There cannot be any acquisition of inaction against the police authorities. Ramchandra Barik and Mrs. Malathi Barik. 18. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the investigation had been made in a correct perspective and all attempts had been made. There cannot be any acquisition of inaction against the police authorities. Thus the question does arise as to whether it is a fit case where the Court should direct the CBI to take the investigation. 19. In State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sampat Lal and Others the Apex Court considered a similar case where the matter had been investigated by the State Investigating Agency and application was filed to transfer the case for investigation to CBI. The Court has observed as under: The appointment of a Special Officer with a direction to inquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper investigation. There is a well-defined hierarchical administrative set-up of the police ....in all other States and to have created a new channel of inquiry or investigation is likely to create an impression that everything is not well with the statutory agency and it is likely to cast a stigma on the regular police hierarchy....the direction to appoint a Special Officer with powers to inquire should not have been made until....the Court had the papers of investigation laid before it for being prima facie satisfied that the investigation had either not been proper or adequate. 20. In Navkiran Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab through Chief Secretary and Another the Apex Court examined a similar case when Punjab was suffering from terrorism at a very high level and activities of the Punjab police itself had been under question. The Apex Court directed the CBI enquiry to investigate the kidnapping of advocates. 21. In Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others the Apex Court itself, while hearing a case, had a prima facie satisfaction that the Hon'ble Minister of the Central Government was involved in an environmental pollution and thus it directed the CBI to registered a case against him in respect of the allegation dealt with and the findings reached by the Court in the judgment treating the findings of the Court as an FIR itself. 22. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. 22. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 142(1) of the Constitution can be invoked in exceptional circumstances while giving direction to the CBI to investigate certain cases. While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, ; Maniyeri Madhavan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police and others, ; and Mohammed Anis Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . 23. In Moti Lal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another the CBI inquiry was directed even to protect the wild life as there was very serious allegation regarding the violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 24. In Hari Singh Vs. The State of U.P. the Apex Court held that in case the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation made by the police authority, it must resort to the remedies available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. itself i.e. moving an application to the higher authority u/s 434 Code of Criminal Procedure. or approach the Court u/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure. In that eventuality the Court will proceed under Chapter-XV of the Code. The Court should not generally issue the direction of investigation by CBI, merely on the ground that the police authorities are not investigating the case properly. 25. In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Apex Court has reiterated the same view observing that CBI inquiry should be directed only in exceptional circumstances, where it is so justified. The direction is to be issued after considering the material on record and after coming to the conclusion that such material disclosed a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI or by any other similar agencies. 26. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another the Apex Court laid down the guidelines as to when the CBI inquiry should be directed by the Court. It should not issue a direction on the basis of ifs and buts. While issuing the direction, the Court is not bound by the averments made in the petition, it should also take note of the reply submitted by the opposite parties. It should not issue a direction on the basis of ifs and buts. While issuing the direction, the Court is not bound by the averments made in the petition, it should also take note of the reply submitted by the opposite parties. If the Court comes to the prima facie view that allegations made in the petition require investigation by CBI, it may issue such direction after recording a prima facie finding which, of course, will be for the limited purpose of directing an inquiry. 27. In view of the above, law can be summarised that referring the investigation to any other agency, taking the case from the State investigating agency, may demoralise the State authorities and it may amount to stigma. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the authority concerned adopt a totally indifferent attitude and is guilty of inaction or allegations of mala fide are made, impleading the officer by name and adducing the evidence to substantiate the allegation of mala fide, if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case that matter requires to be investigated by some other independent agency or case is so complicated that some other investigating agency must handle it, the Court may direct to the other agency to investigate the case. 28. In the instant case, the material placed on record by the State Authorities reveal that there has been no delay in making the investigation and no stone remained unturned; prompt actions have been taken by the Investigating Officer to find out the victim as well as the accused persons; raids had been conducted in various cities outside Orissa; statements of large number of witnesses including the family members of the victim were recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. some of the accused had been apprehended, charge sheets have been filed against them in the competent court; the court had also taken up the committal proceeding and committed the matter to the competent Sessions Court for trial; DNA test had been conducted to ascertain as to whether the dead body, which was found extensively burnt was that of the victim, as the CFSL, Kolkata could not reach to any conclusion, the Investigating Officer had approached the CFSL, Hyderabad for DNA test, report had been submitted by the said CFSL, Hyderabad opining that dead body which was found extensively having burn injuries was that of the victim as there had been complete matching of the DNA of the victim with that of parents. In such a fact situation, we do not see any cogent reason to believe that the investigation has not been made properly or there had been some lethargic attitude on the part of the investigating agency warranting interference by the Court. 29. In these fact-situation, petition for habeas corpus does not survive and we do not find any cogent reason to ask the CBI to investigate the matter. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed