Dr. Ram Vinod Jha v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1156 of 2016 ====================================================== Dr. Ram Vinod Jha, S/o Late Sada Nand Jha At + P.O. - Tilak Tajpur, P.S. - Runni Saidpur, District - Sitamarhi, Mob. No. 9905306115. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar ( Through Its Chief Secretary, of Bihar ).

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range.

4. The Deputy Inspector of Police, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.

6. The S.D.P.O., Sadar Sitamarhi.

7. The Officer Incharge of P.S. Runni Saidpur (Sitamarhi).

8. Jakir Hussain S/o Late Salim at Fulwaria (Gidha), P.S. - Runni Saidpur, Sitamarhi.

9. Naima Khatoon Wife of Jakir Hussain

10. Asmin Khatoon Daughter of Jakir Hussain Both residents of Fulwaria (Gidha), P.S. - Runni Saidpur, District - Sitamarhi.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Ram Vinod Jha (in person) For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nashrul Hoda Khan(SC-1) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-01-2018 Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel representing the State.

It is a totally misconceived kind of application which the petitioner is pursuing. The facts available on the record would disclose that there are serious allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and by this time, after completion of investigation and taking cognizance by the court below even charges have already been framed and the trial is going on. The

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1156 of 2016 (8) dt.11-01-2018 petitioner has obtained DHMS degree somewhere from Laheriasarai in the year 1972-73 and is running a clinic and had also been acting as a journalist. It is his case that because he had published a story regarding the victim girl and against the police he has been falsely framed in a case by taking the father of the victim girl and her family in connivance.

In its criminal writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to look into the story which has been brought before this Court by the petitioner at this stage. It is a matter of record, not denied by the petitioner, that the charges have already been framed against him in this case in which he is an accused. The petitioner will have all opportunity to demolish the prosecution story and prove himself innocent and in case he succeeds in getting acquittal and in proving that the case lodged against him was a result of malicious prosecution he will have remedy under both civil as well as criminal law open. This application needs no further consideration.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

Arvind/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) U T