R. N. MISRA, J. These three writ petitions filed for quashing of an FIR dated 24. 12. 2008 in case crime No. 299 of 2008, under sections 323/342/457/364/302/201/120-B IPC and 7 of UP Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, police station Divyapur, district Auraiya, are being heard and disposed of together by this common judgement. 2. We have heard Shri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel in Writ Petition No. 428 of 2009 preferred by Hoshiyar Singh, Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel in Writ Petition No. 370 of 2009 preferred by Smt. Vibha Tiwari and Shri S. K. Tyagi, learned counsel in Writ Petition No. 903 preferred by Manjul Pandey. 3. We have also heard Shri A. N. Singh, who appeared for the complainant in the writ petitions preferred by Hoshiyar Singh and Smt. Vibha Tiwari and Shri Vikas Sahai learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the writ petitions and the case diary, which has been produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate on our direction. 4. In a short compass the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Smt. Shashi Gupta at 6. 20 AM on 24. 12. 2008 at police station Divyapur, district Auraiya alleging that earlier in the night at about 1. 30 or 2. 00 AM there was a knocking at the door of their house. When her husband, Manoj Kumar Gupta, who was an Engineer enquired as to who was knocking, they replied that they were CID persons from Delhi. Thereupon they broke open the door, whilst Smt. Shashi Gupta hid by locking herself in the bathroom from where she overheard the names of two assailants, Tyagi and Bhatia and her husband crying for mercy. They were saying that first the Executive Engineer would easily pass their bills, but now because of Manoj Guptas interference they were not being passed. The assailants were assaulting her husband with lathis and whip. They were also repeatedly talking on a mobile phone. They then took away her husband on a vehicle after putting a latch on the door from the outside. 5. The injured was brought dead to CHC Auraiya at 5. 10 a. m. on 24. 12. 08 by the petitioner Hoshiyar Singh, S. O. , P. S. Dibiyapur. He was described as an unknown person. 6. The post mortem report on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar Gupta on 24. 5. The injured was brought dead to CHC Auraiya at 5. 10 a. m. on 24. 12. 08 by the petitioner Hoshiyar Singh, S. O. , P. S. Dibiyapur. He was described as an unknown person. 6. The post mortem report on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar Gupta on 24. 12. 08 at 6. 30 p. m. showed the presence of 23 injuries which included contusions, multiple abraded contusions, lacerated wounds, and electrocution marks on different parts of the body of the deceased. There were a large number of the injuries on the head region. 7. The investigating agency has also collected evidence of call details of mobile conversations during the relevant period between petitioner Hoshiyar Singh and petitioner Vibha Tiwari, wife of co-accused Shekhar Tiwari, MLA, between petitioner Manjul Pandey, representative of Shekhar Tiwari and co- accused Yogendra Dohre @ Bhatia, ex-district president BSP and also of Vibha Tiwari, with co-accused Rambabu @ Puti. There were also call details of calls between the deceased Manoj Gupta and co- accused Shekhar Tiwari, prior to the incident. 8. So far as petitioners are concerned, it is contended that they were not named in the FIR and have subsequently been implicated in this case and it is claimed that the police wants to arrest them in a mala fide manner even though no case is disclosed against them. 9. With regard to petitioner Hoshiyar Singh, S. O. , P. S. Diviyapur it was argued by Shri G. S. Chaturvedi that he has been falsely implicated with a dual intent. It was argued that after the hue and cry were raised in the press and elsewhere against the engineers murder the BSP leadership have decided to project an image of fairness, even though they were directly involved in the torture and murder of the engineer to fill party coffers, and to wash their sullied hands they have made a scape goat of the S. O. by first suspending him, and then implicating him in this crime without any legal evidence. Secondly, it is argued that by making Hoshiyar Singh an accused in the offence, the party in power has effectively prevented the general diary and other entries which are the only piece of evidence against the main accused Shekhar Tiwari, from being read, so that they can collusively ensure his acquittal. 10. Secondly, it is argued that by making Hoshiyar Singh an accused in the offence, the party in power has effectively prevented the general diary and other entries which are the only piece of evidence against the main accused Shekhar Tiwari, from being read, so that they can collusively ensure his acquittal. 10. We do not need to go into the motive of the government for the prompt investigation, and the implication of Hoshiyar Singh and the other accused, except to say that as a fall out of the steps taken, after arrests a charge sheet was promptly submitted in this case against Shekhar Tiwari, MLA, Pooti, Vinay Tiwari, Manoj Awasthi, Pal Singh and Gajraj Singh on 3. 1. 2009 inter alia under sections 302 /201 IPC and cognizance was also taken by the Magistrate concerned on 6. 1. 2009. 11. The States position was that the P. S. Diviyapur General Diary entry No. 5 of 24. 12. 08 which was made by the Constable Clerk at 3. 05 AM and which showed that Shekhar Tiwari, local MLA accompanied by Pooti, Vinay Tiwari, Manoj Tiwari arrived on a private car at the police station and left an unknown injured person in a grave condition would not be washed off, simply because Hoshiyar Singh, S. O. Diviyapur was made an accused. The constable clerk who made the entry could attest as to whether such a G. D. entry had indeed been made, and whether Shekhar Tiwari and the other accused had visited the police station with the gravely injured "unknown" person at that time. Intrinsically also, it was not improbable that after such a grave crime, the MLA Shekhar Tiwari himself needed to have gone to the police station to hand over the injured to the co-operative S. O. there as the other accused may have feared arrest if they visited the police station without his protection. Indeed this seems to have happened, and the accused were ostensibly allowed to leave the police station, without enquiring about the identity of the injured, or how he received the injuries. Indeed this seems to have happened, and the accused were ostensibly allowed to leave the police station, without enquiring about the identity of the injured, or how he received the injuries. This conduct of the accused Shekhar Tiwari and others as per the States version is a relevant piece of evidence admissible against them under section 8 of the Evidence Act, and which is preferable to the so called evidence of res getae under section 6 of the Evidence Act which may have been given by S. O. Hoshiyar Singh, who appears to have got the G. D. recorded in such a manner, where he could show that he was not even present at that time, but only received the information two minutes later vide the G. D. Entry No. 6, at 3. 07 a. m. when information was conveyed to him at his premises which are in the Police Station. Since we are not concerned with the case of Shekhar Tiwari here we are not concerned with the other evidence which may have been collected in the Case Diary showing his complicity. Also it cannot be ruled out at this stage that some accused may turn approver and their evidence may be available against Shekhar Tiwari and the other accused under section 306 Cr. P. C. 12. According to the prosecuton the other argument of Sri Chaturvedi that no offence under section 201 IPC or other allied sections is disclosed against Hoshiyar Singh was negatived by the falsification of the evidence and the taking of measures to save the offenders which was apparent from the fact that the co-accused Shekhar Tiwari and others who arrived with the badly injured victim were not even questioned about the identity of the injured, or arrested then and there, but were permitted to leave the P. S. premises. The feigned ignorance about the identity of the injured continued right up to 11. 15 AM on 24. 12. The feigned ignorance about the identity of the injured continued right up to 11. 15 AM on 24. 12. 2008 when the Police Station G. D. entry No. 20 was made which records that the S. O. became aware of the identity of the deceased Manoj Kumar Gupta only when he saw his photograph at the residence of his wife Shashi Gupta, which he visited after leaving the dead body at the hospital, even though mobile records show a number of prolonged conversations between Hoshiyar Singh and Vibha Tiwari after Shekhar Tiwari left the injured at the police station. These as per the States version are all tell tale circumstances suggesting his complicity in striving to shield the real offenders and to falsify the evidence. These falsifications of the G. D. could only have been effected at the behest of S. O. Hoshiyar Singh, as the concerned Constable Clerk on his own was not likely to have made entries in this manner. 13. One other circumstance suggesting the complicity of Hoshiyar Singh in this offence pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate was that Ashish Dixit, Security Officer, Gail Vihar where the deceased was residing with his wife, has given a 164 Cr. P. C. statement before the Magistrate wherein he mentioned that immediately after the incident he telephoned S. O. Hoshiyar Singh about the incident, but he did not arrive at the spot at all. 14. The State counsel has submitted that the submission of Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for Vibha Tiwari, that she was an innocent housewife, who had only made worried enquiries from the police officer concerned about the welfare of her husband, who had innocently dropped the injured person at the police station cannot stand scutiny. As per the prosecution case Vibha Tiwari was not a mere home staying house wife, but the President of the Zila Panchayat. Sufficient call details have been collected to show that Vibha Tiwari and Hoshiyar Singh were constantly in touch by mobile after the badly injured Manoj Tiwari was dropped at the police station on 24. 12. 2008 at 3. 05 a. m. Thus call details show that Hoshiyar Singh made out-going calls on his mobile phone to Smt. Vibha Tiwaris mobile phones for 45 pulses at 3. 35 a. m. , 68 pulses at 3. 55 AM. 12. 2008 at 3. 05 a. m. Thus call details show that Hoshiyar Singh made out-going calls on his mobile phone to Smt. Vibha Tiwaris mobile phones for 45 pulses at 3. 35 a. m. , 68 pulses at 3. 55 AM. Again Vibha Tiwari made out-going calls to Hoshiyar Singhs mobile for 68 pulses at 3. 56 a. m. , thereafter for 46 pulses at 4. 11 AM. , and 115 pulses at 5. 34 a. m. Vibha Tiwari has also had mobile conversations with the other accused such as co-accused Ram Babu @ Puti after the incident. There are also call details of conversations of petitioner Manjul Pandey, representative of Shekhar Tiwari with co-accused Yogendra Dohre @ Bhatia, the ex-president of BSP, at 3. 04 a. m. on 24. 12. 08. All these telephonic conversations immediately after the crime and thereafter suggest the inter-connectedness of the petitioners Vibha Tiwari, Hoshiyar Singh, Manjul Pandey and the other accused and their complicity in this crime. The authenticity, admissibility and reliability of such evidence has been highlighted by the Apex Court in the decision of State (N. C. T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820 , (paragraphs 15, 18 and 19) after taking into consideration the provisions of sections 63 and 65 B (2) of the Evidence Act. 15. Other circumstances apart from the telephonic conversations which according to the learned AGA suggest that Vibha Tiwari was giving instructions on how to conceal evidence of the crime, are the 161 Cr. P. C. statements of the co-accused Yogendra Dohre and Devendra Rajput which mention that Smt. Vibha Tiwari had arrived at the spot, and had instructed the others to take the injured for medical treatment and had asked the co-accused Vinay Tiwari to wipe the blood of the injured which had fallen there. Also Shekhar Tiwari in response to a query by the I. O. has not denied the presence of Vibha Tiwari, but stated that he could not say whether Smt. Vibha had arrived at the spot or not. No doubt learned counsel for Vibha Tiwari states that in the first 161 Cr. P. C. statement of Ygendra Dohre there was no mention about the presence of Vibha Tiwari, and also in the second statement she had exhorted the other co-accused to get medical treatment for the injured. No doubt learned counsel for Vibha Tiwari states that in the first 161 Cr. P. C. statement of Ygendra Dohre there was no mention about the presence of Vibha Tiwari, and also in the second statement she had exhorted the other co-accused to get medical treatment for the injured. In our view what legal value can be assigned to the material collected are matters for determination by the investigating agency and the trial Court. However at this stage this Court cannot reach an inference that there is no prima facie material against the accused so as to justify quashing the FIR or investigation or to stay the arrests of the petitioners. Interference in the writ jurisdiction is also not called for as the investigation even against the petitioners appears to have reached its penultimate stage. The petitioners may also be needed for interrogation by the investigating agency on issues such as the purpose of the repeated and prolonged mobile conversations with each other, why no inquiry was made from the accused Shekhar Tiwari and others when they brought Manoj to the Police station about the cause of injuries to him, and why the co-accused were allowed to leave the police station without being arrested? Why Hoshiar Singh did not get Manoj Gupta medically examined at PHC Diviyapur, which is shown as the destination in the G. D. , and why it took two hours from 3. 15 a. m. when Hoshiar Singh left the police station to reach Manoj to the CHC Auraiya at 5. 10 a. m, where he was brought dead? As held by the Supreme Court in Swapan Patra v. State of West Bengal, [ (1999) 2 SCC 242], State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, [ (2000) 1 SCC 471 ], and Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab, [ (2000) 5 SCC 7 ] , the failure of an accused to give a satisfactory explanation about the incriminating circumstances against him, may be an additional link in the chain of circumstances to establish his complicity in a crime. It is also not very material in these circumstances that Vibha Tiwaris name cropped up first in the Parcha of 3. 1. 09 which contained mobile call details of the calls between the different accused. 16. However, before parting, we must record our extreme disquiet at a feature which has again been revealed in the present case, viz. It is also not very material in these circumstances that Vibha Tiwaris name cropped up first in the Parcha of 3. 1. 09 which contained mobile call details of the calls between the different accused. 16. However, before parting, we must record our extreme disquiet at a feature which has again been revealed in the present case, viz. the close nexus of police officials with criminalized political elements and their goons. This appears to have become a constant phenomena irrespective of who be the party in power. The long and repeated telephonic conversations of S. O. Hoshiyar Singh with Vibha Tiwari, and sporadic talks with MLA Shekhar Tiwari, their willingness to let Shekhar Tiwari and his co-accused leave the police station without enquiry or arrests after leaving the police to attend to the injured, whom the police describes as "unknown," even though there is little reason to believe that the identity of the deceased was not known at that stage, and the contrasting indifference to the call from the security staff of the Gail Vihar colony where the deceased resided about the assault and abduction of engineer Manoj Gupta, their failure to disclose to Smt. Shashi Gupta the next morning at 6. 20 a. m. when she went to the P. S. to lodge the report regarding the fate of the injured (who had died by then), and their pretence that they were unaware of his identity till 11. 15 a. m. shows not only the abject subjection of the police to "their political bosses," but also their willingness to bend backwards and to go the extra mile to cover up their misdeeds and the utter indifference and deafness of the police official to the cries of the common citizen. It is time now that stringent steps are taken for breaking this vicious nexus between the police and the politicians and their goons, and for taking strong steps for ensuring that investigation becomes fair and honest by separating the law and order and investigative wings of the police, and by initiating severe actions and punishments against police officials and politicians involved in such acts of corruption or spurious investigations. Directions for separating the law and order and the investigative wings of the police and other related issues for making the investigative process more objective, fair and scientific were issued by the Apex Court in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India, [ (2006) 8 SCC 1], paragraph 31, which were recently reaffirmed in paragraph 8 (4) of Pramod Kumar v. Bihar Vyavsayik Sangharsh Morcha, AIR 2007 SC 2948 . Our anxiety is that if we do not act now to bring about these changes, the time may not be too far when there may be be no rule of law at all as every one may decide to take law in their own hands. 17. With the aforesaid observations all the above mentioned writ petitions are dismissed. 18. However, we direct that as far as possible, the investigation and trial in this case should be concluded within six months. 19. It is made clear that the observations made above have been made only in answer to the extensive arguments raised by the petitioners counsel. The investigating agency and the trial Court are of course expected to decide the matter by exercise of their independent discretion and judicial mind. 20. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order within a week to the Session Judge, CJM and S. P. Auraiya for compliance. .