Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.

1. In the instant case the informant has filed I.A. No. 1724 of 2007 for being permitted to intervene as respondent in opposition of the prayer made in the writ application.

2. In view of the nature of reliefs sought for in the instant writ application and also taking into consideration that the case has been committed to the court of Sessions I find it necessary to hear the informant of the case, who has filed this intervenor application. As such I allow the interlocutory application and permit the intervener respondent to appear as respondent, in opposition to the writ application.

3. In the instant writ application the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents particularly respondent No. 2 and 3, namely, the Inspector General, Central Range, Patna and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to take a final decision on the question of further investigation of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 231 of 1997.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that one Binod Kumar gave a fard beyan on 5.11.1997 at 8 A.M. at Tara Nurshing Home giving rise to Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 231 of 1997, under Sections 307, 302, 341 and 120B of the I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act, alleging that accused persons, namely, Shiv Kumar Bhagat and his brother after forming conspiracy, killed his father, Shaligram Singh, in league with others. This is the first charge sheet wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure as an accused and they were not sent up for trial. However, the names of the petitioners figured in the supplementary chargesheet No. 31/03 dated 28.2.2003.

5. Thereafter Dy. S.P. (Town), Patna conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that earlier investigation was not carried out properly and certain important facts still remained to be investigated. By letter No. 4255 dated 8.12.2004 Dy. S.P., Town, recommended to the City S.P., Patna for reinvestigation of the case under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The S.S.P., Patna vide his Memo No. 3858 dated 20.12.2004 sought opinion from the Incharge A.P.P. Civil Court, Patna in the light of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Dy. S.P. (Town), Patna.

6. The District Prosecution Officer vide his Memo No. 653 dated 27.1.2005 opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, reinvestigation would be done. Thereafter S.S.P. Patna vide his Memo No. 390 dated 15.2.2005 enquired as to why further investigation in this case has not been conducted in the light of earlier order, as such he directed the I.O. to submit his report complying the earlier order as to the reinvestigation.

7. It appears that no formal request was made in the court in seisin of the case for reinvestigation and no such further investigation was made by the I.O. In that view of the matter the petitioner has filed the writ application with the prayer for directing respondents to take final decision on the question of further investigation of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 231/97.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that if police finds new materials which can throw necessary light in respect of accusations and involvement of others, it has full right to carry out further investigation. He submits that if investigation is not carried out properly or illegally or it is misdirected, it would be within the right of the Superior Officer to issue necessary direction in this regard. He further submits that the delay in trial cannot be a ground for curving reinvestigation if there is sufficient substance for conducting further investigation. In this respect the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 606 (Arun Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar); 2004 (3) PLJR 287 SC (Hasan Bhai Valli Bhai Qurershi V/s. the State of Gujrat); 2004 (4) PLJR 723 (Neel Kamal Singh V/s. The State of Bihar) and 2006 (3) PLJR 610 (Lalit Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar).

9. The learned Counsel for the State submits that in course