ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents to provide security to the petitioner, who happens to be the only injured eye witness in Sadar P.S. Case No. 967 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4447 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Presently the case is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag. 3. From the F.I.R. it appears that one person was murdered and the petitioner was injured in the said occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of this petitioner while the petitioner was undergoing treatment in the hospital, in which four persons were named as accused, as disclosed by this petitioner to his father. The occurrence is of 16.3.2013. It appears that subsequently the statement of this petitioner was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which he has named two more persons as the accused. The investigation was taken up, but it has not yet been concluded. It is stated that those two persons subsequently named by the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., are still roaming free in the town, and the petitioner being the only eye witness to the occurrence, and his family members are being threatened by them, and accordingly, the present writ application has been fled with a prayer for providing adequate security to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 301 of 2014 for the same relief, which was disposed by order dated 27.02.2015. In the said writ application this Court had directed the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Officer Incharge, Sadar Police Station, Hazaribag, to conclude the investigation as early as possible and to file the report before the Court below. This Court had also directed that if aggrieved with the investigation, the petitioner may move before the Court below at the appropriate stage with the appropriate application, as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court had also directed that if aggrieved with the investigation, the petitioner may move before the Court below at the appropriate stage with the appropriate application, as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. It was also directed that if the petitioner needed protection for giving his evidence in the Court below, he shall move the Trial Court below and if the Trial Court, finds necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, direct the police authorities concerned to provide protection to the petitioner on the date, when the petitioner is to be examined in course of Trial and with these directions the said writ application was disposed of. 5. Thereafter with the same prayer for providing security, the present application has again been filed by the petitioner. In the present case the counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3, from which it appears that the case arises out of the dispute between the rival two groups dealing in land business. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no concrete proof about the alleged danger to the petitioner's life or to the life of his father. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the investigation against two persons named subsequently by the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., is still going on, but some of the witnesses have not supported the involvement of those persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the threatening to the life of the petitioner is still there and the investigation of the case is not being concluded, nor those accused persons are being arrested, though they are available in the town. Learned counsel accordingly, again pressed for providing adequate security to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that adequate protection has already been provided to the petitioner by this Court by order dated 27.02.2015 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 301 of 2014. It is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, that this is a case of rivalry between two groups due to dealings in land and the investigation against two accused persons is still going on, who admittedly were not named initially in the FIR. It is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, that this is a case of rivalry between two groups due to dealings in land and the investigation against two accused persons is still going on, who admittedly were not named initially in the FIR. These two persons have been named by the petitioner subsequently in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. This application appears to have been filed with the intention to build pressure upon the I.O. of the case to arrest and submit charge sheet against the subsequently named two accused persons by the petitioner, as it is stated in the writ application that those persons are still roaming free in the town and threatening the informant and his family members. 9. Be that as it may, since adequate protection has already been given to the petitioner by order dated 27.02.2015 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 301 of 2014, I do not see any reason for giving any further protection to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be made a tool for building undue pressure on the investigating authority by one or the other interested or rival parties. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 10. It is made clear, that the directions given earlier by this Court by order dated 27.02.2015 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 301 of 2014 shall be carried out by the respondents concerned, in its letter and spirit.