I.A. No. 7442 of 2016 :

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for addition of parties by impleading the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi with a further direction to hand-over the investigation to CBI.

2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the mother of the deceased had taken every steps so as to bring the perpetrators of the crime to face prosecution, but on account of the perfunctory investigation having been carried out by the general police as well as by the CID, the main culprits are roaming around freely. It has been stated that allegations have been levelled also against the Officer In-charge, Laxman Prasad that he was in constant touch with Bipin Sharma and his associates at the time of commission of the murder of Rashid Khan. Learned counsel submits that in view of the lack-luster nature of investigation having been carried out, the investigation into the offence be handed over to CBI and the amendment prayed for by the petitioner be allowed.

3. In order to appreciate the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case diaries were called for and a perusal of which reveals that CID had properly conducted the investigation leading to Bipin Sharma being charge-sheeted. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer as would appear had several times contacted the petitioner and whatever lead has been provided by her, the same has been acted upon. In fact the CID after making a thorough investigation would come to learn about the involvement of Bipin Sharma which the petitioner also does not deny. So far as the supplementary investigation which is being carried out, in absence of any fact which would show that the investigation is not being properly done, the same cannot be handed over to CBI, merely at the whims of the petitioner.

4. In view of the fact that the amendment which has been sought for does not have any leg to stand in view of the proper manner in which investigation was/is being carried out by the CID, the amendment application preferred by the petitioner is rejected.

5. I.A. No. 7442 of 2016 is rejected.

6. However, it is expected that the CID shall conclude the supplementary investigation speedily.

W.P. (Cr.) No. 71 of 2016 :

7. Heard Mr. A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondents.

8. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.3.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 265 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the applications preferred by the Investigating Officer on 3.2.2016 and 2.3.2016 seeking permission for Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test of the accused Bipin Sharma and one witness Javed Khan has been rejected. A further prayer has been made in this writ application, directing the respondent No.3 to conduct Narco test and Brain mapping test of the aforesaid persons.

9. An FIR was instituted on the self statement of the Officer In-charge of Mango Police Station against unknown accused persons under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for committing the murder of the deceased Rashid Khan. Subsequently, the investigation was conducted by the CID and the Investigating Officer of the CID has submitted charge-sheet against accused Bipin Sharma and supplementary investigation remained pending. During the course of supplementary investigation, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 for conducting the Narco test and Brain mapping test of accused Bipin Sharma. The Investigating Officer of CID had filed separate applications on 3.2.2016 and 2.3.2016 through the learned A.P.P. for permission from the Court for Narco Analysis Test and Brain Mapping Test of the accused Bipin Sharma and one witness Javed Khan. A rejoinder was filed on the said applications and ultimatel