1. This order shall dispose of Cr. W.J.C. No. 421 of 2001 (Nalini Kant Agrawal V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and Cr.W.J.C. No. 318 of 2002 (Ajay Agrawal & Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.).

2. The facts which have required the parties to rush to this Court in nutshell are that Nalini Kant Agrawal, father of the deceased Dharmendra Agrawal lodged a report at Police Station Bhabhua that his son had been murdered by some unknown persons. The first information report was countersigned by one Nasimuddin Ansari. On strength of the report dated 24.9.2000 an offence was registered against unknown persons. Later on the police found involvement of number of persons and at a later stage the police being convinced that the alleged murder was a result of conspiracy also added Section 120B I.P.C. for the purposes of investigation. Subsequent to addition of the offence names of Ajay Kumar Agrawal and Amar Kumar Agrawal @ Nippu Agrawal both sons of Late Kamla Kant Agrawal were added in the list of the accused persons.

3. It appears that after the investigation against some, a charge-sheet was filed and on 7.12.2000, Binod Kumar, Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Bhabhua submitted an application (application dated 24.11.2000) inter alia submitting that involvement of Nirmal Kant Agrawal, Ajay Kumar Agrawal and Amar Kumar Agrawal @ Nippu Agrawal was writ large, therefore arrest warrant be issued against the said accused persons. On 7.12.2000 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted the application and directed issuance of warrants. From the records it appears that the warrant was issued for production of the said two accused persons in Form-ll Schedule- II of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said warrant returned unserved/ unexecuted on 23.12.2000. On 23.12.2000 a request was made by the Station House Officer that the accused were evading arrest and were trying to remove their immovable properties therefore proclamation be issued. On 26.2.2001 an application was filed by the investigating officer seeking a direction for attachment of the property of accused Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Nirmal Kant Agrawal and Amar Kumar Agrawal @ Nippu Agrawal, the Court granted the said application. It appears that an application was filed by the original informant that despite directions of the Court to attach the property no further action had been taken by the concerned investigating officer, which was leading to the belief that the investigating officer had joined hands with the accused persons. An allegation was also made that the accused were very much in the town and were intimidating the original informant and the witnesses. The Court was also appraised of the fact that the applications for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the accused persons had already been rejected.

4. In the order dated 26.2.2001 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that application for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the said accused persons had already been rejected. The Court further observed that the order of attachment of property had already been passed and it would be the duty of the investigating officer to obtain the warrant of attachment and proceed further. The Court also observed that any further direction to the investigating officer to execute the warrant of attachment would be interference in the investigation.

5. From the records it appears that on 26.9.2001 the investigating officer made an application to the Court for issuance of the arrest warrants. The Court conceded to the request and ordered that warrants for arrest and under Section 83 Cr.P.C. be simultaneously issued.

6. The present writ Cr.W.J.C. No. 421 of 2001 was filed on 31.8.2001, therefore, the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by the trial Court was not annexed in this writ application. In Cr.W.J.C. No. 421 of 2001 the grievances of the applicant Nalini Kant Agrawal are that D.l.G. Shahabad Range without any authority of law or without taking into consideration that the Cou