Vinay Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govtt. Of Bihar, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.231 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2019 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== VINAY KUMAR PRASAD S/o- Sheo Dayal Raut Resident of Village - Mirzapur, P.O.- Mahanagni, P.S. - Bettiah (Muffasil), District - West Champaran at Bettiah.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVTT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.

The Principle Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 4.

The Commissioner, Patna Pramandal, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah. 6.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

7.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

8.

The Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah. 9.

The Superintendent of Police (East), Patna 10.

The District Transport Officer, Patna.

11.

The District Transport Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah. 12.

The Station House Officer, Mehdiganj, Patna 13.

The Station House Officer, Bettiah (Muffasil), West Champaran. 14.

The Station House Officer, Majhaulia, West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-02-2020 The petitioner has a remedy seeking release of the vehicle under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate but instead of availing his statutory remedy, he has directly moved this court in its writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the State submits that such

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.231 of 2020(2) dt.26-02-2020 2/2 application need not be entertained as the same is likely to create a bad precedence.

This Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has moved this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring the statutory forum available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is thus, not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly.

It is left open for the petitioner to seek his remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate court. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U