ORDER : Pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by this Court, the ADG, CID and the I.O. of the case being Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 302/34/120B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act are present with the records including the case diary. 2. Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned GP-5 represents the State and on instruction from ADG, CID he has assisted this Court. Mr. Amit Narayan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 6 and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent nos. 7 and 8 have been heard. 3. On 18.10.2022, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and the State, this Court formed a prima facie opinion that: (1) the matter relating to release of private respondent nos. 6 to 8 on personal bond in the facts of the present case and the materials in which the I.O. himself had been seeking their custodial interrogation at one stage coupled with the fact that their privilege for anticipatory bail was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires consideration in accordance with law and (2) the fact that the CID has kept the investigation of the case pending with it for eight years and there is no whisper in the counter affidavit explaining the reasons for the huge and inordinate delay in conduct of investigation in a murder case, the grievance of the petitioner that the case is not being properly investigated and she has lost confidence in the investigating agency requires consideration. 4. For a ready reference, the order dated 18.10.2022 is being reproduced hereunder:- “This Court in the present writ application has been considering the conduct of the Investigating Agency so far in the matter of investigation of the case being Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 443 of 2014 registered for offences alleged under Sections 302/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand the I.O. of the case released the named accused persons on personal bond despite the fact that their privilege of anticipatory bail granted by this Court had been cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they were directed to surrender in police station, at the same time the investigation of the case has been kept pending by the State C.I.D. for over eight years without there being any progress in the case. The facts of the case as revealed in the First Information Report are that when the husband of the petitioner was sitting at the varandah of his house, he was shot dead by a person who was holding pistol in his hand. This petitioner is an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. In her written complaint to police, she has specifically alleged that in the year 2009 August, one Anil Sharma, M.D., Amrapagali Group with the help of the other named accused persons including private respondent nos. 6 to 8 in the present writ application had taken control of the trust and had forcibly removed her father who was Secretary of the trust, whereafter disputes were going on and in relation to those disputes records were available in the police station. It is alleged that the entire income of Balika Vidyapith were unlawfully taken into control of two persons namely, Dr. Praveen Sinha and Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh. A specific allegation is that at their instance on previous occasions in the campus of the school firings were done and her husband and other officers were being threatened regularly. Her husband was being asked to leave Lakhisarai failing which he would have to face dire consequences. It is stated that to weaken the case lodged by her husband against unauthorized opening of account of the Trust and on finding that during his lifetime it would not be possible for the accused persons to take complete control of the Trust, the husband of the petitioner was threatened on 31.07.2014 and it was told by one employee Shri Radhe Shyam Singh that her husband would not get the post of Secretary and they can go to any extent for this. The petitioner specifically alleged in her written complaint that the accused persons including private respondent nos. 6 to 8 are involved in the conspiracy to kill her husband. The petitioner specifically alleged in her written complaint that the accused persons including private respondent nos. 6 to 8 are involved in the conspiracy to kill her husband. It is further revealed from the records that during the on-going investigation one of the accused namely Dr. Praveen Kumar Sinha and two persons namely Roshan Kumar, son of Ballav Singh and Roshan Kumar, son of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh were arrested. In T.I. parade Roshan Kumar, son of Ballav Singh was identified as shooter. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) of the Government of Bihar on 23.10.2014 and one Uday Prasad Singh, Dy. S.P., C.I.D. was given charge of the investigation. On 12.09.2014 an application with the case diary was filed on behalf of the I.O. requesting the learned C.J.M. to issue non-bailable warrant against six accused persons including the private respondents. It, however, appears that by the time the said application was moved, the private respondents had moved in the learned court below seeking privilege of anticipatory bail wherein an interim order of no coercive action to be taken against the respondent nos.6 and 7 was passed. Therefore, on 25.09.2014 when the application was moved, the learned C.J.M. directed for issuance of non-bailable warrant against four accused persons including respondent no.8. It so happened that on 31.10.2014 the I.O. filed a chargesheet against only accused namely Dr. Praveen Kumar Sinha but after going through the materials present in the case diary the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/C while taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 302/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act found a prima facie case to proceed against other accused persons also including these private respondents and accordingly issued a non-bailable warrants for their appearance. This order taking cognizance and issuance of NBW against them was challenged in this Court in Cr.Misc.No.46208 of 2014 and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2015 on the ground that the investigation against these private respondents were still pending. The private respondents filed an application seeking privilege of anticipatory bail in this Court giving rise to Cr. Misc. No. 38299/2014, Cr. Misc. No. 42812/2014 and Cr. Misc No. 45617/2014 respectively. The private respondents filed an application seeking privilege of anticipatory bail in this Court giving rise to Cr. Misc. No. 38299/2014, Cr. Misc. No. 42812/2014 and Cr. Misc No. 45617/2014 respectively. A learned Judge of this Court granted privilege of anticipatory bail to these private respondents but the petitioner took the matter in an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court giving rise to Cr. Appeal Nos. 682-684/2016. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of the seriousness of the allegations vide its order dated 22nd July, 2016 set aside the order of this Court and directed the private respondents to surrender themselves in the concerned policed station within four weeks time. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the private respondents presented themselves in the police station but upon their surrender instead of taking them in custody and producing before the learned court, after recording their statements they have been allowed to go on execution of personal bond. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the conduct of the Investigating Officer on the face of the materials in form of specific allegations present in the F.I.R. against these private respondents. It is stated that considering the gravity of the offence and the specific allegations that they were indulged in threatening the husband of the petitioner who had been ultimately murdered, there was no reason for the Police Officer to allow the private respondents to go on personal bond when during investigation of the case the I.O. had himself sought for their custodial interrogation and at his instant non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.09.2014 against four accused including respondent no.8. So far as respondent nos.6 and 7 are concerned, their anticipatory bail had already been cancelled by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that in fact when the investigation was going on it was the Criminal Investigation Department who had issued letter dated 12.08.2016, as contained in Annexure-‘D’ to the counter affidavit of respondent nos.2 to 4, wherein a specific direction was given to the I.O. that if the private respondents surrender within four weeks in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court then their statements be recorded and they should be forwarded in judicial custody. Learned counsel submits that the role of the C.I.D. would be under scanner in this case inasmuch as the same C.I.D. wrote a letter as contained in memo no.1976 dated 19.08.2016 to the I.O. saying that if the private respondents surrender then their statements be recorded and if they do no surrender then the department be informed. It is submitted that in the same letter it was recorded that a decision as to accusation of these persons are yet to be taken. It is his submission that the letter dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure-D/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 2 to 4) was nothing but a clear attempt to favour the accused persons and something which they had failed to achieve in form of anticipatory bail order was allowed to be achieved by way of going scot-free on execution of a personal bond in the garb of the personal bond by the I.O. It is submitted that on the one hand, the I.O. had filed an application with the case diary seeking custodial interrogation of the private respondents and at the same time he has released the private respondents on personal bond. This, according to the petitioner, has sabotaged the entire investigation of the case and the private respondents having been moving freely over all these years have influenced the investigation so much so that till date even after expiry of eight years the investigation has not been completed. On behalf of the State a counter affidavit has been filed today. The counter affidavit is totally silent on what this Court wanted by way of an answer from the official respondents. In its order dated 02.09.2022, this Court had directed the Additional Director General of Crime Investigation Department, Government of Bihar as well as the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai to file their comprehensive counter affidavit on the issues involved in this writ application. One of the issues pointed out in the order is with respect to the action of the then police authorities who released the respondent nos.6 to 8 on PR bond. The counter affidavit is though running in 29 pages but this Court finds that up to the page no.25 of the counter affidavit there is only reiteration of the facts which were already there in the previous counter affidavit. The counter affidavit is though running in 29 pages but this Court finds that up to the page no.25 of the counter affidavit there is only reiteration of the facts which were already there in the previous counter affidavit. In one sub-paragraph of paragraph ‘7’ a statement has been made in the following words:- “Investigation is going on against FIR named accused namely (1) Anil Sharma, (2) Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh, (3) Rajendra Singhania, (4) Smt. Anita Singh, (5) Shambhu Saran Singh and (6) Radheyshyam Singh.” In paragraph ‘8’ an ornamental statement has been made that the I.O. has been given instruction for further investigation and to elicit details regarding the current status of the accused whose bail had been cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 have appeared through their learned Advocates. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 7 and 8. They have sought to justify their release on personal bond by the I.O. It is their submission that the I.O. was competent to release them on bond in exercise of his power under sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having taken note of the aforementioned submissions, this Court is prima-facie of the view that the matter relating to release of private respondent nos. 6 to 8 on personal bond in the facts of the present case and the materials in which I.O. himself had been seeking their custodial interrogation at one stage coupled with the fact that their privilege of anticipatory bail was cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court requires consideration in accordance with law. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the C.I.D. having kept the investigation of the case pending with it for eight years and there being no whisper in the counter affidavit and/or an attempt by them to explain the reasons for this huge and inordinate delay in conduct of investigation in a murder case has lost confidence of the petitioner and the grievance of the petitioner that the case is not being properly investigated and at this stage it should be transferred to an independent agency requires consideration. In the facts and circumstances noticed by this Court hereinabove, this Court finds that it is one of those cases in which a court monitored investigation is required in the interest of justice. In the facts and circumstances noticed by this Court hereinabove, this Court finds that it is one of those cases in which a court monitored investigation is required in the interest of justice. As regards need for a court monitored investigation very recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Mohammed Zubair Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 3649 , reiterated paragraph ‘60’ of the judgment rendered in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. The Union of India and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 which is being reproduced hereunder:- “60. [...] Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting.” In the case of Amar Nath Chaubey Vs. Union of India and others reported (2021) 11 SCC 804 what has been recorded in paragraph ‘11’ and ‘12’ are also being reproduced hereunder:- “11. The police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police. Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police. Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law. If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours of the law, it cannot amount to interference with investigation. A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police. 12. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India [ (2014) 2 SCC 532 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 1], this Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 552-53 & 556, paras 24-26 & 39) “24. In the criminal justice system the investigation of an offence is the domain of the police. The power to investigate into the cognizable offences by the police officer is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. However, such power has to be exercised consistent with the statutory provisions and for legitimate purpose. The courts ordinarily do not interfere in the matters of investigation by police, particularly, when the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the investigating officer is not functioning bona fide. In very exceptional cases, however, where the court finds that the police officer has exercised his investigatory powers in breach of the statutory provision putting the personal liberty and/or the property of the citizen in jeopardy by illegal and improper use of the power or there is abuse of the investigatory power and process by the police officer or the investigation by the police is found to be not bona fide or the investigation is tainted with animosity, the court may intervene to protect the personal and/or property rights of the citizens. 25. Lord Denning [The Due Process of Law, First Indian Reprint 1993, p. 102] has described the role of the police thus: ‘In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play a vital role. 25. Lord Denning [The Due Process of Law, First Indian Reprint 1993, p. 102] has described the role of the police thus: ‘In safeguarding our freedoms, the police play a vital role. Society for its defence needs a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force of police whom it can trust : and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice. The police, of course, must act properly. They must obey the rules of right conduct. They must not extort confessions by threats or promises. They must not search a man's house without authority. They must not use more force than the occasion warrants.’ 26. One of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to book. *** 39. … In the rare and compelling circumstances referred to above, the superior courts may monitor an investigation to ensure that the investigating agency conducts the investigation in a free, fair and time-bound manner without any external interference.” (underline is mine) At this stage, this Court directs the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D. and the I.O. of the case to be present in person with entire materials which have been collected so far to show the progress in course of investigation to this Court and to explain as to why this case should not be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation keeping in view the conduct of the investigating agency so far. Let this matter be listed tomorrow at 2.15 PM.” 5. In today’s hearing, as regards the conduct of the CID in writing the letter dated 19.08.2016 (Annexure ‘D/1’ to the counter affidavit of the respondent nos. 2 to 4), the ADG, CID has not come out with reasons apparent to justify writing of such a letter whereby within seven days of the first letter dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure ‘D’) a direction was issued to the I.O. in some vague words only saying that the accusation against these private respondents are yet to be verified. 2 to 4), the ADG, CID has not come out with reasons apparent to justify writing of such a letter whereby within seven days of the first letter dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure ‘D’) a direction was issued to the I.O. in some vague words only saying that the accusation against these private respondents are yet to be verified. The ADG, CID has finally come out with stand that prima-facie such letter should not have gone to the I.O. He has submitted that after his taking over the charge of the Department recently in September 2021, he has reviewed this case in July 2022 and found that the investigation of the case had not progressed since the year 2016. He has submitted that in July 2022 after reviewing the materials on the record, it has transpired that on records there are sufficient materials to proceed against the private respondent nos. 6 to 8. This is mentioned in his report submitted to this Court today in paragraph ‘10(ix)’. He is, however, unable to explain as to why despite there being materials available on the record, earlier the I.Os. of this case had not taken steps to submit a charge-sheet. The ADG, CID submits that in this regard he will call upon the earlier I.Os. to show cause to explain as to why appropriate action be not taken against them for keeping the investigation pending so long. 6. It is further submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court had canceled the bail of the private respondents and they were directed to surrender in the police station, prima-facie it appears to him that the I.O. could not have released them from the police station on their personal bond. In this regard also he will seek explanation from the erring officials and take up this issue to a logical end. 7. In this regard also he will seek explanation from the erring officials and take up this issue to a logical end. 7. When this Court called upon the ADG, CID to say as to why a preliminary enquiry be not ordered to be registered by the C.B.I. at this stage to find out as to who are the persons involved behind stalling the entire investigation of this case over eight years and why such kind of direction was issued in an interval of one week through Annexure ‘D/1’ which was apparently a direction to favour the private respondents, the ADG, CID submits that this Court may, for the present keep this issue pending for consideration on the next date and allow him to take some corrective measures. 8. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6 submits that in every case, it is not necessary to arrest all the accused. When this Court called upon learned counsel to take a stand as to whether after the cancellation of bail of private respondents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the I.O. of the case could have granted them the same privilege from the police station by taking a bond from them and can it be said to be in exercise of their power under Sub-Section (2) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. learned counsel has very candidly submitted that he will not argue on that and would not go to support such action of the I.O. by any interpretation of law. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 7 and 8 has more or less endorsed the submission of Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 10. The case diary has been produced before this Court and this Court is again not only disturbed on going through the same but finds itself reaching to almost a conclusion that the whole investigation of this case has been dumped and since 2016 after releasing the private respondents on personal bond without recording any reason. No progress at all has been made in course of investigation. The perusal of case diary reveals that in paragraph ‘203’ it is recorded that the statement of Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad has been recorded and as directed, he has been allowed to go on personal bond. On whose direction this has been done was a question before this Court. No progress at all has been made in course of investigation. The perusal of case diary reveals that in paragraph ‘203’ it is recorded that the statement of Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad has been recorded and as directed, he has been allowed to go on personal bond. On whose direction this has been done was a question before this Court. This has been answered by the ADG, CID saying that it is Annexure ‘D/1’ to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 2 to 4 which has been written by the then S.P., C.I.D. to the I.O. The further paragraphs would show that it contains the statement of other accused as and when they surrendered, got their statements recorded. In paragraph ‘255’, it has come that during this period, the informant and her daughter had submitted an application in the office of the Superintendent of Police, CID requesting him to provide them security. What happened on that application is not mentioned in the case diary. 11. The case diary is totally blank for the period ending 2016 to May 2019 meaning thereby that for two and half years, nobody looked into the case diary. On 10.05.2019 and thereafter only some formal paragraphs were recorded which have no significant bearing upon the investigation. The case diary reveals that during 2019 to 2021 the I.O. did not take any further step as if either there was nothing more to be done on the point of investigation or the I.O. had instruction not to take up the investigation. The records speak for themselves. 12. On the point of transfer of a case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the law is well settled, it is not to be done in a routine and mechanical manner. The parameters required to be considered for transfer of an investigation are such as a case where the transfer is required to instill confidence in the investigation and where the allegations are against the local police of connivance with the accused persons then to provide credibility to the investigation and to do complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights such transfer may be ordered. Reference in this regard may be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. Reference in this regard may be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 and K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480 . 13. In the present case, this Court at this stage and subject to further consideration of the submissions of the State would record its prima-facie view that the petitioners seem to be succeeding in impressing upon this Court that the manner in which private respondent nos. 6 to 8 were let off, no custodial interrogation was done despite the fact that at one stage the I.O. had himself sought warrant of arrest against them for custodial interrogation and then their anticipatory bail was canceled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further the fact that the investigation has thereafter been dumped and they have been allowed to move freely which has resulted in influencing the investigation and it has remained pending for over 8 years and during this period the petitioner and her family has suffered threat, it seems to be a case which requires consideration for purpose of transfer to CBI. 14. Let the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director be added as party respondent no. 9 in course of the day. Two copies of the brief be served upon Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, 3rd learned Standing Counsel who appears for the CBI by November, 2022. Her name will appear in the cause list. 15. The ADG, CID has ensured this Court that he will act swiftly and without losing any time to take corrective measures which would be including taking action against the private respondent nos. 6 to 8 in accordance with law and issuance of show cause to the erring officials. He shall proceed to do that. 16. This Court will look into the bonafide of his submissions on this score on the next date. 17. Since, in the previous order, this Court has stated about the need for monitoring of this case, list this matter on 16th November, 2022 in 2:15 P.M. list as first case.