Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard the parties.

2. Pursuant to the last order dated 03.12.2024, A.S.H.O., Musrighsarari, Amit Kumar and the Investigating Officer, Sikandar Kumar are present in the Court.

3. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Musarigharari P.S. Case No. 16 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 328, 302, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 03.02.2024 by the informant, Ramjatan Ray.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was at his door, Sunil Kumar Rai @ Baua came and took his son Ranjeet Kumar Rai on a motorcycle but he failed to return. Later upon search, the informant came to know that the sons of the informant and Sunil Kumar Rai were lying in unconscious condition. They were taken to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Later, while his son was declared dead, Sunil Kumar Rai was shifted to Patna for better treatment. Alleging conspiracy and poisoning of the informant's son, the F.I.R.

5. On 03.12.2024, while hearing the matter, this Court noticed that though Sunil Kumar Rai was undergoing treatment, his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet under Section 302 of the I.P.C. amongst others was submitted against the petitioner only because the SIM Card of the deceased was in his possession.

6. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur to get the statement of Sunil Kumar Rai recorded by the Dy.S.P. as clearly the investigation was faulty.

7. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the order dated 03.12.2024 read as follows:—

“6. There is one version according to which the informant has alleged poisoning of the informant’s son only because the SIM was with the petitioner and the Police has submitted charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, the fact remains that while the informant’s son died, Sunil Kumar Rai was undergoing treatment. In that circumstances, it was the duty of the Police to record the statement of Sunil Kumar Rai.

7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Bharat Bhushan endorsed that the police has not taken the statement of Sunil Kumar Rai to ascertain whether the deceased and Sunil Kumar Rai consumed liquor which proved fatal and/or anyone poisoned them.

8. It seems that Police in a haste to file charge sheet to meet the deadline do not even bother to come to a conclusion whether it is an accident or killing and in a routine manner charge sheets are been submitted amongst other under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This clearly is complete violation of law and directions given to the Police from time to time. It has to be noted that the petitioner is 19 years of age with no criminal antecedent and thus a proper investigation is the need of the hour as he has a future in hand.

9. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur has lots to do in the matter. Immediately, the further investigation of the case has to be handed over to the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as it is a case where Police has submitted charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas, the narrative points out alternative possibility of it to be an accident due to consumption of poisonous liquor. It has to be repeated that at stake is the life of a person (petitioner) who is 19 years of age having no criminal antecedent till date.

10. The Police as such is duty bound to record the version of Sunil Kumar Rai as also the other villagers who may have seen the deceased/Sunil Kumar Rai together immediately before the occurrence.”

8. Pursuant thereto, a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is on record through the Dy.S.P. (R), Samastipur in which after thorough investigation, it has come to the conclusion that the case under section 302/307/328/128(B) of the I.P.C. has not been proved rather it is the case under Section 379, 411, 304/34 of the I.P.C.

9. Learned APP, Mr