Hon'ble Anurag Kumar,J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. This petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to set the petitioner at liberty conditionally or unconditionally in pursuance of the FIR dated 4.5.2012 lodged at case crime No. 130 of 2012, under sections 363/366 IPC, PS Phulpur, Allahabad or this Court may pass such order as it deems fit and proper. We are of the view that Division Bench Writ Court is not empowered to grant the indirect prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the informant Smt. Sushma Dhuriya has alleged in the FIR that the co-accused Pawan and his friends had abducted her 16 years old daughter on 23.4.2012. It is further mentioned in the petition that subsequently on the alleged statement of Kusum recorded on 9.6.2012 the petitioner and not his friend Pawan has been made an accused. Therefore, it is prayed that the said accused persons should be arrested. This Court cannot issue directions at the behest of an accused as to how the investigation has to be conducted as it amounts to interference with the investigation. It is always expected that the investigating agency shall conduct the investigation in a fair and honest manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of the Apex Court in Azija Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012)3 SCC 126 . In that case one "M" was kidnapped by one "J", but the police recorded a missing report only. Subsequently "M' was found murdered under mysterious circumstances. Two sons of the appellant before the Apex Court were arrested, instead of action being initiated against the alleged accused "J". The Magistrate had ordered further investigation, but handed over the investigation to the same police authorities with whose investigation the Magistrate was not satisfied. The High Court declined to intervene. The Apex Court observed that the High Court in such a situation should have interfered and issued proper directions so that fair investigation should not have only been made available to selected persons and denied to others. We think that the said case was decided on the special facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of CBI and another Vs. We think that the said case was decided on the special facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of CBI and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another, 1997 Cr.L.J 63, it has specifically been observed that the accused has no locus standi in deciding as to which agency should investigate the case and the manner in which the investigation should be conducted. For all these reasons, we find no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. _