Ranjan Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24884 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Ranjan Singh, Son of Late Vidya Singh, Resident of Village- Rampur Haat Railway Quarter NO. E- 82, P.O.- Rampur Haat, P.S.- Rampur Haat, DistrictBirbhoom West Bengal. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Bihar 2.
Smt. Komal Singh, wife of Ranjan Singh, Son of Bikash Singh, Resident of Singhaul Pokhar, P.S.- Singhaul, District- Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2019 This application has been filed for transfer of Maintenance Case No. 59M of 2013 from the court of Begusarai to any other court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner has appeared in the said case and his evidence was recorded. However, he was threatened by the members of the opposite party and as such he feels danger to appear at Begusarai court and he has filed a petition stating that the evidence may be recorded by the Commission but the same has been rejected.
Opposite party No.2 has appeared by filing Vakalatnama and a counter affidavit has also been filed. Submission of learned counsel for opposite party No.2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24884 of 2018(10) dt.16-04-2019 2/2 is that there is no question of appearance of other family members of the petitioner as the case has already been fixed for final argument and the allegation of threat is false and concocted and he undertakes that members of the opposite party will not make any harm to the petitioner or his family members. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner has not appeared and when the case was posted for ex parte proceeding he appeared and thereafter he has not adduced evidence and his prayer for examination of his evidence by Commission has also been refused and now the case is fixed for final argument. In view of above submission, this application is dismissed with condition that opposite party No.2 or her family members will not make threat to the petitioner or make any step to harm him.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T