Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11708 of 2016 =========================================================== Rakesh Kumar Son of Sri Awadh Kant Bhagat, resident of Village - Gathulli, P.O. - Samaila Lal Ganj, P.S. - Keoti, District - Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga.
7. The Officer-in-Charge, Keoti Police Station, Darbhanga.
8. The Circle Officer, Keoti Circle, Darbhanga.
9. Dineshwar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav son of Late Jagdish Yadav.
10. Mohan Mandal son of Late Bhola Mandal.
11. Bhogi Sahani son of Late Mahadeo Sahani.
12. Rajendra Sahani son of Late Ram Prasad Sahani Respondent Nos. 9 to 12 are resident of Village - Dahipura, P.O. - Samaila Lal Ganj, P.S. - Keoti, Darbhanga.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Priyank Samdarshi, Advocate For the State :
Mr. S. D. Yadav, A.A.G. IX Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. IX =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has moved the Court for a direction to the official respondents to provide protection to his life and property as he was feeling threatened by the extortion demand raised by the respondents no. 9 to 12.
From the counter affidavit, it appears that a substantive case has been lodged and notice has also been issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.11708 of 2016 dt.21-02-2017 2/2 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the petitioner as well as the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that there has been action by the police but he feels threatened with regard to what will happen in future.
Be that as it may, the authorities, though belatedly, have woken up and taken action.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required in the present matter.
However, in future, as and when the petitioner feels threatened, either with regard to his life or property, he is at liberty to approach the concerned official respondents who shall take immediate and appropriate action, in accordance with law, to ensure that the life and property of the petitioner is protected. The writ petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U