Patna High CourtCR. WJC/127/2016dismissed

Abhimanyu Ram v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna And ORS

2016-02-24Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.127 of 2016 ====================================================== Abhimanyu Ram, Son of Keshav Ram, Resident of village - Akordhi, P.S. Kaerahagar District - Rohtas (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas.

5. The S.H.O., Karaghar Police Station, Rohtas.

6. Ramjee Singh Son of Ayodhya Singh

7. Suraj Prakash Singh son of Kamlesh Singh

8. Upendra Singh son of Haridvar Singh

9. Krishna Singh Son of Rajgrihi Singh

10. Ayodhya Singh Son of Late Shiv Pujan Singh

11. Kamlesh Singh Son of Ayodhya Singh

12. Sunil Singh Son of Ayodhya Singh

13. Lav Ram Son of Munni Ram All 6 to 16 residents of village Chotaki Akordhi P.S. Karahagar, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K.Pathak, SC 7 Mr. A K Prasad, AC to SC 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has sought a direction to arrest respondent nos. 6 to 13 in connection with Karahagar PS Case No. 120/2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 342, 323, 324, 427, 436 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the petitioner, the investigation has since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed against three accused persons who are not party respondents in the

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.127 of 2016 (2) dt.24-02-2016 2/2 present petition.

Once the police has completed the investigation, the matter is before the Court which is in seisin of the matter and to consider as to whether any person is liable to be summoned to stand trial or not. However, there cannot be any direction to the investigating agency to arrest respondent nos. 6 to 13 only because the petitioner so desires. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) mrl.

U T