VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

                      [2012] 9 S.C.R. 987


             VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL                              A
                                 v.
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
    (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3672 of 2012 etc.)

                      NOVEMBER 6, 2012
                                                                      B
   [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
            AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

     CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
                                                                      c
     ss. 439, 167(2), 173(2) and (8) - FIR -Charge-sheet
submitted - Direction by Court for further investigation by CBI
- CBI registering another FIR - Application for bail on default
ground - Held: Since the prayer for default bail was made in
connection with the initial F. I. R. in which charge-sheet had        0
been ft1ed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the plea with
regard to the default bail was not available to the petitioner -
The mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the
Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the
superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the             E
Magistrate concerned to whom the report is forwarded does
not mean that the report submitted u/s 173(2) is abandoned
or rejected - Notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to register
a "fresh FIR", the investigation undertaken by the CBI is in
the nature of further investigation u/s 173 (8) pursuant to the
direction of the court - Further, the delay including the trial has   F
not been caused by the prosecuting authorities, but by a co-
accused and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the
petitioner.

    The petitioner, a Superintendent of Police, was                   G
arrested by the C.l.D. Crime on 3.5.2010 consequent upon
an FIR registered as ICR No. 115 of 2006, in respect of
an alleged fake encounter in which one 'TP' was killed.
Charge-sheet in the case was filed on 30.7.2010 against
                            987                                       H
    988      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 9 S.C.R.

A 12 Police Officers including the petitioner. In the writ
  petition filed by the mother of the deceased, the Supreme
  Court by its order dated 8.4.2011 directed the State Police
  authorities to hand over all the records to the CBI, and
  the latter was directed to investigate all aspects of the
B case relating to the killing of the deceased and to file a
  report in the court concerned. The CBI, on 29.4.2011,
  registered a separate FIR No. RC 3(5)/2011 and applied
  before the Court of Session for release of certain
  documents including the charge-sheet, and
c supplementary charge-sheet in FIR No. 115/2006, and to
  handover the same to it for fresh investigation. The prayer
  was allowed. The petitioner, after unsuccessfully
  approaching the Judicial Magistrate and the Court of
  Session for bail on the grounds of investigation not being
  completed and delay in trial and the petitioner being in
0
  custody for a long time, challenged the order of the
  Sessions Judge before the High Court in a petition under
  Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with s.482
   CrPC, which was dismissed.

E         Dismissing the petition, the Court

        HELD: Per Altamas Kabir, CJI (for himself and for
    Surinder Singh Nijjar, J)

       1.1 One of the most significant features of this case
F is that the prayer for default bail was made on behalf of
  the petitioner in F.l.R.No.115 of 2006, lodged by the local
  police, though the submissions in respect thereof have
  been made in connection with the subsequent F.l.R.
  lodged by the C.B.I. It is obvious that the petitioner was
G fully aware of the situation while making the application
  for grant of bail, knowing that he was under arrest in
  connection with the first F.l.R. and not under the second
  F.l.R. lodged by the C.B.I. Since the prayer for default bail
  was made in connection with F.l.R.No.115 of 2006, in
H which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated
     VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF            989
                     GUJARAT

period of 90 days, the plea with regard to the default bail    A
was not available to the petitioner. It can also not be said
that since a fresh investigation was directed to be
conducted by the Court, the earlier charge-sheet must be
deemed to have been quashed. (para 18) [996-F-H; 997-
A]                                                             B
      1.2 Even on the question of delay in concluding the
trial, such delay has not been caused by the prosecuting
authorities, but by a co-accused and advantage thereof
cannot be taken by the petitioner. [para 19) (997-B]
                                                               c
Per Chelameswar, J. (Concurring) :

     1.1 Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 obligates the police investigating a case to make a
report to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence     o
which is subject matter of the investigation. Sub-s. (8)
recognizes the authority of the Investigating Officer/
Agency to make any further investigation in respect of
any offence notwithstanding the fact that the report
contemplated under sub-s. (2) of s.173 had already been        E
submitted. It is settled law that a Magistrate to whom
report is submitted u/s 173(2) can direct the Investigating
Officer to make a further investigation into the matter.
[para 3] (997-G-H; 998-C; 999-A]

   Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration & Another 1988        F
SCR 700 = (1988 (Supp.) SCC 482 - referred to

     1.2 The mere undertaking of a further investigation
either by the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the
directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a     G
direction by the Magistrate concerned to whom the
report is forwarded does not mean that the report
submitted u/s 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only
that either the investigating agency or the court
concerned is not completely satisfied with the material
                                                               H
    990     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 9 S.C.R.


A collected by the investigating agency and is of the
  opinion that possibly some more material is required to
  be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the
  commission of the offence indicated in the report. [para
  4] [999-B-D]
B
       1.3 Therefore, it cannot be said that the directions
  given by this Court earlier in Writ Petition (Criminal)
  No.115 of 2007 would necessarily mean that the charge-
  sheet submitted by the police stood implicitly rejected.
C [para 5] [999-E]
       1.4 Even the fact that the CBI purported to have
  registered a "fresh FIR", does not lead to conclusion in
  law that the earlier report or the material collected by the
  State Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the
D charge-sheet ceased to exist. It only demonstrates the
  administrative practice of the CBI. Notwithstanding the
  practice of the CBI to register a "fresh FIR", the
  investigation undertaken by the CBI is in the nature of
  further investigation u/s 173 (8) of the CrPC pursuant to
E the direction of the Court. [para 5-6] [999-F; 1000-A-B]
                         Case Law Reference:
          1988 SCR 700              referred to          para 3
F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Crl.) No.
    3672 of 2012 etc.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2012 of the High
    Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application
    No. 2698 of 2011.
G                                  WITH
    Crl. M.P. No. 11364 of 2012.

       Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Nitin Jain, Anista Jain, Uday Ram,
  Ashish Kumar Saini, Atul Agarwal, Mosh. lrshad Hanif for the
H Petitioner.
  VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF                   991
                  GUJARAT

     Tushar Mehta, Hemantika Wahi, S. Panda, Jesal, Nandini        A
Gupta Maheen Pradhan, Subramonium Prasad, Vaibhav
Srivastava for the Respondents.

     The Judgments of the Court was delivered by

      ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. This Special Leave Petition is        B
directed against the judgment and order dated 20th March,
2012, passed by the Gujarat High Court dismissing the petition
filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal, under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), being           C
SCRMA No.2698 of 2011.

    2. There are certain special features in this case which
need to be recorded in order to decide this matter.
                                                                   D
     3. The Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as
Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, Gujarat. On 28th
December, 2006, one Tulsiram Prajapati was killed in an
encounter and a First Information Report (F.l.R.), being
l.C.R.No.115 of 2006, was registered with the Ambaji Police
Station, Banaskantha, Gujarat, against unidentified persons        E
under Sections 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC), Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

     4. In 2007, Nirmala Bai, the mother of the deceased, filed    F
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.115 of 2007, before this Court praying
for an inquiry into the incident by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.8.1.), and while the same was pending, the
prosecution, upon completion of investigation, added Sections
302, 364, 307, 333, 334, 427, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120-        G
8, 471 read with Section 34 l.P.C., together with Section
25(1 )(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, as also Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act, against 12 police officers, including the
Petitioner. Consequent thereupon, the Petitioner was arrested
                                                                   H
    992       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   by the C.l.D. crime, on 3rd May, 2010, and charge-sheet was,
    thereafter, filed against the accused persons, including the
    Petitioner, on 30th July, 2010.

       5. One of the strange features of this case, therefore, is
B that in the case which was registered against the victim, 12
  police officers, including the Petitioner, came to be arraigned
  as accused in what was alleged to be a fake encounter.
  However, the fact remains that F.l.R. No.115 of 2006 was
  lodged with the Ambaji Police Station on 28th December.
C 2006, resulting in the arrest of the Petitioner by the C.l.D. crim1..,
  on 3rd May, 2010, and the filing of charge-sheet on 30th July,
  2010, within 90 days of his arrest.

       6. While considering the writ petition filed by the mother
  of the deceased (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.115 of 2007), this
D Court, by its judgment and order 8th April, 2011, refused to
  accept the investigation conducted and completed by the State
  C.l.D. and directed as follows:

          "39. In view of the above discussion, the Police Authorities
          of the Gujarat State are directed to handover all the records
E
          of the present case to the CBI within two weeks from this
          date and the CBI shall investigate all aspects of the case
          relating to the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati and file a report
          to the concerned court/special court having jurisdiction
          within a period of six months from the date of taking over
F         of the investigation from the state Police Authorities. We
          also direct the Police Authorities of the state of Gujarat,
          Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh to cooperate with the CBI
          Authorities in conducting the investigation."

G        7. We have intentionally quoted the aforesaid direction of
    this Court, since the main plank of the submissions made on
    behalf of the Petitioner in this Special Leave Petition depends
    on an interpretation thereof.

          8. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the C.B.I.
H
   VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF                    993
         GUJARAT [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

registered a separate F.l.R. on 29th April, 2011, being R.C.-        A
3(S)/2011/Mumbai dated 29th April, 2011. On 31st May, 2011,
the C.B.I. applied before the Court of Sessions Judge Palanpur,
Banaskantha, Gujarat, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2010, inter
alia, for the following directions:
                                                                     B
     "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that keeping in view the
     orders dated 08.04.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
     of India, the articles submitted by the Gujarat Police as per
     the list enclosed (as desired by this Hon'ble Court) along
     with the Charge Sheet No.50/2010 dated 30.07.2010 vide          C
     CC No.1439/10 dated 30.07.2010 and supplementary
     Charge Sheets in case FIR No.115/2006 dated
     28.12.2006 of PS Ambaji, District Banaskantha may be
     released and handed over to the CBI for the purpose of
     fresh investigation.
                                                                     D
           It is further prayed that in the light of order of the
    Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no further proceeding may
    be allowed in the case till the investigation of CBI is
    finalized. And for this the applicant shall ever pray."
                                                                     E
    9. The said application was allowed by the Sessions
Judge on 9th June, 2011.

     10. Since the investigation was not completed and the
Petitioner had been in custody for a long time, an application
for bail was moved on his behalf in the Court of learned             F
Sessions Judge, Palanpur, on 16th August, 2011, who rejected
the same on the ground that the application ought to have been
moved before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danta, and
not before the Sessions Court.
                                                                     G
      11. Having regard to the order of the learned Sessions
Judge, the Petitioner moved an application before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Danta, on 2nd September, 2011, for
bail, which was rejected on 7th October, 2011. The Petitioner
then moved the Gujarat High Court by way of Special Criminal         H
    994      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A Application No.2698 of 2011, for quashing and setting aside
  the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7th October, 2011,
  pa·ssed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, rejecting his
  prayer for bail. Another application for regular bail, being
  Criminal Misc. Application No.04 of 2012, was also filed on
B behalf of the Petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Palanpur,
  on 2nd January, 2012, on the limited ground of delay in the trial.
  The said bail application was dismissed by the 2nd Additional
  Sessions Judge on 27th February, 2012. The High Court also
  rejected the Petitioner's application challenging the order of the
c Magistrate by its order dated 20th March, 2012. On 9th April,
  2012, the Petitioner's Criminal Misc. Application No.4729 of
  2012, challenging the order of the 2nd Additional Sessions
  Judge dated 27th February, 2012, was dismissed by the High
  Court. It is against the said order that the present Special
0 Leave Petition has been filed.
        12. The major thrust of the submissions made by Mr. Sushil
  Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner,
  was that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of statutory
  bail in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Learned
E counsel urged that since after registering a fresh F.l.R. and
  commencing of fresh investigation, as directed by this Court,
  the C.B.I. had failed to file charge-sheet pursuant to such F.l.R.,
  within the stipulated period of 90 days, the Petitioner was
  entitled to bail on account of such default in view of the
F provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Learned
  counsel also emphasized that the Petitioner was in custody
  since his arrest on 3rd May, 2010, and on the other hand, the
  trial was being delayed.

G       13. Mr. Sushil Kumar urged that since the earlier
  investigation by the State police had not been accepted by this
  Court and the C.B.I. was directed to conduct a fresh
  investigation, it would necessarily entail that the charge-sheet
  filed on the basis of the initial inquiry was also rejected by this
H Court, though not in explicit terms. Mr. Sushil Kumar submitted
   VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF                      995
         GUJARAT [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

that there could not be two charge-sheets arising out of the two       A
FIRs in respect of a single incident and charge would have to
be framed on the basis of one of the said two charge-sheets
filed and, since the first investigation had not been accepted,
the logical consequence would be that the first charge-sheet
also stood quashed which would give the second charge-sheet            B
due legitimacy. Accordingly, since the charge-sheet had not
been filed in respect of the second F.l.R. within a period of 90
days, as stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the Petitioner
was entitled to be released on default bail, as a matter of right.

     14. Mr. Sushil Kumar made it clear that he was basing his         C
submissions mainly on the ground available under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. and the fact that the trial had been delayed for
a long period during which the Petitioner has remained in
custody.
                                                                       D
      15. Appearing for the C.B.I., Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned
 Senior Advocate, submitted that there was a basic fallacy in
Mr. Sushil Kumar's submissions since the Petitioner was
arrested in connection with the first F.l.R., being No.115 of
2006, in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated       E
period of 90 days and that he had not been arrested in
connection with the second F.l.R. filed by the C.B.I. Accordingly,
the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was not
available to the Petitioner. Mr. Tankha also submitted that the
investigation started by the C.B.I. was in continuation of the         F
investigation initially commenced on the basis of F.l.R. No.115
of 2006 of Ambaji Police Station and that the lodging of a fresh
F.l.R. by the C.B.I. was only for the purpose of enabling the C.B.I.
to take over the investigation from the State police in terms of
the directions given by this Court.
                                                                       G
     16. On the question of delay in the trial, Mr. Tankha pointed
out that the same had been stayed at the instance of a co-
accused and C.B.I., therefore, had no hand as far as delay of
the trial is concerned. According to Mr. Tankha, in any event,
                                                                       H
    996     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A charge-sheet had already been filed even on the basis of the
  second F.l.R., which would have to be treated as a
  supplementary charge-sheet to the original charge-sheet filed
  in F.l.R. No.115 of 2006. Mr. Tankha pointed out that it was also
  significant that the prayer for default bail in terms of Section
B 167(2) Cr.P.C. had been made on behalf of the Petitioner in
  connection with F.l.R. No.115 of 2006, of Ambaji Police Station
  dated 28th December, 2006, and not in connection with F.l.R.
  No.RC-3(S)/2011/Mumbai dated 9th April, 2011, filed by the
  C.B.I.
c       17. Mr. Tankha, therefore, contended that the Special
    Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner was entirely misconceived
    and was liable to be dismissed.

        18. We have carefully considered the submissions made
D on behalf of the respective parties and we have little hesitation
  in rejecting Mr. Sushil Kumar's submissions. One of the most
  significant features of this case is that the prayer for default bail
  was made on behalf of the Petitioner in F.l.R.No.115 of 2006,
  lodged by the local police with the Ambaji Police Station, though
E the submissions in respect thereof have been made in
  connection with the subsequent F.l.R. lodged by the C.B.I. It is
  obvious that the Petitioner was fully aware of the situation while
  making the application for grant of bail, knowing that he was
  under arrest in connection with the first F.l.R. and not under the
F second F.l.R. lodged by the C.B.I. In the event the second
  investigation is treated to be a fresh investigation and the
   Petitioner had been arrested in connection therewith, the
  submissions made by Mr. Sushi! Kumar would have been
  relevant. However, since the prayer for default bail was made
G in connection with F.1.R.No.115 of 2006, in which charge-sheet
   had been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the
  argument with regard to the default bail was not available to
   the Petitioner and such argument has, therefore, to be rejected.
   The other submission of Mr. Sushi! Kumar that since a fresh
   investigation was directed to be conducted by this Court, the
H
   VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF                   997
                   GUJARAT

earlier charge-sheet must be deemed to have been quashed,           A
has to be rejected also on the same ground.

     19. Even on the question of delay in concluding the trial,
such delay has not been caused by the prosecuting authorities,
but by a co-accused and advantage thereof cannot be taken           8
by the Petitioner.

     20. Since no argument had been advanced on behalf of
the Petitioner on the merits of the case, we also refrain from
looking into the same and on the basis of our aforesaid
observations, we are not convinced that the Special Leave           C
Petition, along with the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.11364 of 2012, warrants any interference by this Court. The
Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
are, therefore, dismissed.
                                                                    D
     J. CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. While I agree with the
conclusion reached by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, I wish
to add a few lines.

     2. The necessary facts and submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner are clearly set out in the judgment of   E
my Lord the Chief Justice. I wish to deal with only one
submission made on behalf of the petitioner - that the earlier
judgment and order of this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.115 of 2007 dated 8th April 2011 directing the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CB) to conduct an investigation            F
pertaining to all aspects of killing of Tulsiram Prajapati would
necessarily mean that the charge-sheet filed by the Gujarat
Police (CID) stood rejected. In my view, the submission is
misconceived for the following reasons.
                                                                    G
      3. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "the CrPC") obligates the police investigating a case
to make a report to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offence which is subject matter of the investigation. Sub-section
(2) indicates the various pieces of information which are           H
    998         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A    required to be contained in the said report. Section 173(2)(i)(d)1
     stipulates that the said report should state whether any offence
      appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom. If the
   · Investigating Officer opines in the said report that an offence
    ·appears to have been committed by the persons named
s · therein, he is also obliged to forward to the Magistrate all
     documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely along with
    the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC of all
    persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as
    witnesses. 2 Sub-section (8) 3 recognizes the authority of the .
c    Investigating Officer/Agency to make any further investigation
     in respect of any offence notwithstanding the fact that the report
     contemplated under sub-Section (2) of Section 173 had already
    been submitted. It may be worthwhile noticing that under sub-
    section (3), even a superior police officer appointed under
    Section· 158 of the CrPC could direct the Investigating Officer
0
    to make a further investigation pending any orders by the

    1.   Sectiort 173(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the
         police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
         of the· offence on a police report, in the. form prescribed by the State
E        Government, stating-
    (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom.
    2.   Section 173(5). When such report is in respect of a case to which section
         170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with
         the report-! ·                                       "'
         (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution
F        proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during
         investigation;            .
         (b) the statements recorded under .section 161 of all the persons whom
         the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
    3.   Section 173(8). Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to
         preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under
G        sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon
         such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further
         evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magisrate a further
         report or report regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the
         provision of sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as tar as may be, apply in relation
         to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
         under sub-section (2).
H
     VIPUL SHITAL PRASAD AGARWAL v. STATE OF                               999
           GUJARAT [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

concerned Magistrate on the report submitted. It is settled law                     A
that a Magistrate to whom report is submitted under Section
173(2) can direct the Investigating Officer to make a further
investigation into the matter. 4

     4. In my opinion, the mere undertaking of a further
                                                                                    B
investigation either by the Investigating Officer on his own or
upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to
a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is
forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under
Section 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either                     C
the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court is not
completely satisfied with the material collected by the
investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some
more material is required to be collected in order to sustain the
allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the
report.                                                                             D

     5. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned
senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, that the directions
given by this Court earlier in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.115 of
2007 would necessarily mean that the charge-sheet submitted                         E
by the police stood implicitly rejected is without any basis in law
and misconceived. Even the fact that the CBI purported to have
registered a "fresh FIR", in my opinion, does not lead to
conclusion in law that the earlier report or the material collected
by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the                    F



4.   Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration & Another (1988 (Supp.) SCC 482
     para 7.
"7. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has already been                G
    submitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom the charge-
    sheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under Section 173(8)
    CrPC to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and through
    investigation of the case. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of
    Investigation will investigate the case in an independent and objective
    manner and it will further submit additional charge-sheet, if any, in
    accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."                H
    1000    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A charge-sheet ceased to exist. It only demonstrates the
  administrative practice of the CBI.

        6. In my view, notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to
  register a "fresh FIR", the investigation undertaken by the CBI
B is in the nature of further investigation under Section 173 (8) of
  the CrPC pursuant to the direction of this Court.

   RP.                                        Petitions dismissed .
                                                     •