Patna High CourtCR. REV./903/2017dismissed

Jitendra Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-02-26Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.903 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2013 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Jitendra Singh, Son of Late Ram Ayodhaya Singh, Resident of Village - Rudal Pakri, Police Station - Pipra Kothi, District - East Champaran (Motihari).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Bipin Kumar Singh, Son of Late Satyadeo Singh, Resident of Village - Dal Pakri, Police Station - Pipra Kothi, District - East Champaran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Om Prakash Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. SMT. ANITA KUMARI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2017 whereby the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner/informant for summoning the witnesses to depose before the court as their statements were stated to be inadvertently not recorded in the case diary while the investigation was under process.

The records of this case reveal that in the FIR specific names have been taken by the informant/petitioner of the persons who were present at the time of occurrence and who had assaulted the deceased and one injured Amit Kumar. After

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.903 of 2017(2) dt.26-02-2018 2/2 the deposition of four of the prosecution witnesses, a vague application without any detail was filed on behalf of the informant/petitioner stating that some of the persons who were present at the time of occurrence and who had given their statements before the I.O. have not been examined at the trial and they be examined as prosecution witnesses for the just fair disposal of the case.

The aforesaid application of the informant/petitioner was rejected summarily by the trial court on the ground that the application was vague and that the purpose of filing of such application was only to delay the disposal of trial. There is no good reason for this Court to interfere with the order impugned.

The petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) KKSINHA/- U T