Lalan Kumar v. The Union Of India, Through The Home Secretary, And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2016 ====================================================== Lalan Kumar, son of Late Kamleshwari Prasad, Resident of Hira Lal Lane Chhajjubag, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Home Secretary.
2. The Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi
3. The State of Bihar, through the Home Secretary
4. The Commandant, BMP-6, Muzaffarpur, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.208 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. l Year- Thana District- PATNA ====================================================== Lalan Kumar, Son of late Kamleshwari Prasad, Resident of Hira Lal lane Chhajjubag, P.S Gandhi Maidan , District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Govt. of Bihar, Patna,
2. The Principal Secretary, Home , Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commandant BMP- 6, Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr. WJC No.205 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For Union of India : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Soliciter General Mr. Anshuman Singh, C.G.C.
For the State Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4 (In Cr. WJC No.208 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Soliciter General For the State Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.205 of 2016 (17) dt.16-11-2016 2/2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present writ petitions. The request is allowed. The petitions are thus dismissed as withdrawn.
3. But it is ordered that the Divisional Security Committee, on a representation submitted by the petitioner, shall consider if any security is to be provided to the petitioner at his own cost in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, In the meanwhile, the security cover provided to the petitioner shall be withdrawn forthwith.
4. It is further ordered that if the petitioner has any grievance then he is at liberty to make a mention in the present petitions only in view the conduct of the petitioner in filing petitions soon after one petition is decided. (Hemant Gupta, ACJ) K.C.jha/- U T