Jitendra Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar Trhough The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna And ORS
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1101 of 2014 (2) dt.06-04-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1101 of 2014 ======================================================
1. JITENDRA KUMAR RAI SON OF LATE PARMANAND RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DHARHARA, P.S. ARA TOWN, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DEHRI ON SONE, SHAHABAD RANGE
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHOJPUR AT ARA
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARA, BHOJPUR
6. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIRCLE, ARA, BHOJPUR
7. THE OFFICER - IN - CHARGE OF ARA NAGAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR AT ARRAH .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar,Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K.Sinha, GP-15 Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, A.C. to GP15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 06-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader-15 for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities for arresting the accused in Ara Nagar Town Police Station Case No. 470 of 2013 for the offences under Section 302, 307 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The function of carrying out investigation in cognizable offences as well as arrest of accused persons lies within the domain of the police authorities.
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1101 of 2014 (2) dt.06-04-2015
4. That apart, in the present case, the petitioner himself has made a representation before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, New Delhi in terms of his letter dated 02.09.2014, para 2 of which discloses that the concerned accused has already been granted bail by the District & Sessions Judge on 12.02.2014.
5. The writ petition is entirely misconceived and dismissed as such.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U T