AMAR SARAN,AND SURENDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This petition has been filed for seeking transfer of the investigation from the local police of P.S. Baanpur to C.B.I. or other independent investigating agency in Crime No. 1067 of 2009, under sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Poilce Station Baanpur, district Lalitpur.
(2.) THE allegations in this case were that there was theft of three idols from the Kshetrapal temple, Baanpur, district Lalitpur in the night of 25/26.12.2009. The F.I.R. was lodged on 26.12.2009 at 9.25 a.m. against unknown persons alleging that brass statues of Adinath weighing 6 kg., Shanti Nath weighing 6 Kg., Mahavir weighing 5 kg. and three silver items and Rs.8000-9000/- were stolen after breaking the lock. The petitioner, who was a Police constable, was nominated on the statement of the co-accused Ajay Pratap Singh, Dinesh @ Bachchoo and Raju Batla alias Raju from whom three statues were recovered, when they were trying to sell it of on 27. 01.2010. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition No. 5600 of 2010 for quashing of the F.I.R. and staying his arrest. This writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 20.4.2010. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been implicated in this case in a mala fide manner, because he was not agreeable to the suggestion of the S.O.G. in-charge of Lalitpur Sri Malkhey Dixit requesting him to arrest the thieves, so that he could win appreciation and also there is only the statement of the co-accused against the petitioner. He also claims to have an alibi that he has reported after sickness at the Reserve Police Lines, Jhansi, in the night of 25/26.12.2009 and he was there and he slept in the barracks along with his companions Constable Sharif Uddin and Constable Jagdamba Pal, hence he could not be present at district Laltipur, which is 100 km. away from Jhansi, at the time of incident some time in the night of 25/26.12.2009. In our view, prima facie, this appears a far fetched suggestion because the petitioner was unwilling to arrest the accused at the behest of S.O.G. in-charge, Lalitpur, and he agreed with the suggestion of S.O.G., Jhansi, hence, he was falsely implicated. There was no reason for the co-accused to name him. Moreover, at the stage of investigation, even on a suspicion against an accused, the police may proceed in the matter and on that basis it cannot be inferred that the police is biased against an accused. So far as alibi is concerned, prima facie it does not appear clinching in nature as it is always possible to ask any police personnel, who were co-workers to depose in favour of a person, who is also a co-worker. Notably, learned A.G.A. points out that even 82/83 Cr. P. C. proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, but he is evading arrest, and he may be needed for interrogation or getting recoveries made etc. In the case of C.B.I. vs. Rajesh Gandhi, (AIR 1997 SC 93), it has been laid down that normally the accused has no locus standi to decide as to who should investigate the case against him. Some cases were cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. S. N. Sharma vs. Bipin Kumar Tewari, AIR 1970 S.C. 786, State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260, Navin Chandra N. Majithia vs. State of Meghalaya and others, AIR 2000 SC 3275 and Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2010 Babu Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and others. These decisions are not specifically on the point as to the locus standi of an accused to ask for transfer of investigation against him to an agency of his choice, but only deal with the issue that where there are clear reasons to suspect that the investigation is not fair, then the Court may even of its own order transfer the investigation to some other agency. This Court cannot reach to any such inference that the investigation is tainted in the present case. There was no reason for the co-accused to name the petitioner, who is a Constable as having been involved in such a crime. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere in this writ petition. It is dismissed.;