Bholi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Inspector General Of Police, Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.303 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2016 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== Bholi Kumar S/o - Late Briju Singh Resident of Village - Dumri, P.S. - Pakribarawan, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Inspector General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Deputy Inspector General of Patna, Magadh Range, Gaya. 3.

The Superintendent of Police, Nawada.

4.

The Station House Officer-cum-Officer In-Charge, Roh, P.S. Roh, District - Nawada.

5.

S.I. Roh Police Station Sri Gyaneshwar Pd. Sinha P.S. Roh, District - Nawada.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State:

Mr.Manish Kr. GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 This application was filed by the petitioner on 03.03.2017 with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to complete investigation and submit report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Roh P. S. Case No. 54 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016 registered under Section 304 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State on 30.06.2017. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that pursuant to the direction of the respondent no. 3, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nawada conducted

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.303 of 2017(2) dt.10-07-2019 2/2 supervision and found the case to be true against the named accused Dr. Mahendra Sharma and unknown others under Section 420/304 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 15(2)(d) of the All India Medical Council Act, 1956. On query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instruction as to what happened to the case after the counter-affidavit was filed in June, 2017.

Since the investigation and the supervision of the case had been completed in June 2017 itself, and the petitioner has no further instruction, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to draw attention of the court where the matter is pending, if the police report has not been submitted till date.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) kanchan/- U T