Pankaj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.186 of 2015 ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Singh, S/o Jai Krishna Prasad Singh resident of Vill.- Hempur, P.S. - Navhatta Nagar, Dist. - Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CR. Patna.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sachivalaya, Patna.
6. The S.H.O., Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna.
7. The Investigating Officer/S.I, .Rajeev Nagar Police Station in Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case Nos. 67, 68 and 84 of 2013, Patna.
8. Shri Dhirendra Pandey S/o not name the then S.H.O. Rajiv Nagar Police Station and informant in Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 84/2013 at present posted in the district of Bhojpur.
9. Dr. Sarita Sinha wife of Sanjay Kumar Sinha resident of Jagriti Nagar, Magistrate Colony Road, P.S. - Rajeev Nagar, Patna - 14. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kr. Manish, SC- 21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 01-09-2015 It is submitted that due to efflux of time, the instant application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.186 of 2015 (2) dt.01-09-2015 2 / 2 Constitution of India become infructuous, as the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the C.B.I. or some other independent investigating agency to investigate Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 84 of 2013. But the fact of the matter is that not only charge sheet has been submitted, but even the discharge application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been dismissed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the application is disposed of as infructuous.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T