Patna High CourtCR. WJC/95/2016dfd for non appearance

Chaturbhuj Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna And ORS.

2016-02-24Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.95 of 2016 ====================================================== Chaturbhuj Singh, Son of Late Ram Dahin Singh, Resident of Village + P.O. - Balwakuari, P.S. - Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. Director - cum - Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

4. Superintendent of Police, Vaishali.

5. S.I. of Police, Police Station Hajipur Sadar.

6. Bijli Singh, Son of Late Bhim Singh,

7. Krishna Singh, Son of Late Bhopen Singh,

8. Ram Prasad Singh, Son of Late Arjun Singh,

9. Braj Kishore Singh, Son of Devendra Singh,

10. Subodh Singh, Son of Nandlal Singh,

11. Abhimanayu Kumar, Son of Braj Kishore Singh, All respondent no. 6 to 11 are resident of village + P.O. - Balwakuari, P.S. - Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.

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

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, GP 29 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2016 None is present on behalf of the petitioner again. Yesterday also, none was present on behalf of the petitioner even after the case was passed over to be taken up after few cases earlier. Though the Appearance column of the order dated 23.02.2016 records the presence of Dr. Om Prakash, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner.

I have been told that the name of the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in the Appearance column appears by default in terms of the format of the order prepared by the

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.95 of 2016 (3) dt.24-02-2016 2/2 NIC. But in fact, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner and the name of the Advocate has been wrongly mentioned in the order dated 23.02.2016.

Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner again, this writ application is dismissed for default. (Hemant Gupta, J) mrl U