Mukesh Pratihast And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.27778 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -103 Year- 2014 Thana -JALE District- DARBHANGA ======================================================
1. Mukesh Pratihast, Son of Shyam Pratihast, Resident of VillagePihwara, Police Station- Saharghat, District Madhubani, at present R/o at Flat No. 284, Sector 13, Pocket A, Dwaraka, New Delhi.
2. Shyam Sundar Pratihast @ Shyam Sunder, Son of Late Kameshar Pratihast
3. Sushila @ Moti @ Moti Devi Wife of Shyam Sundar Pratihas, Both R/o Village- Pihwara, Police Station- Saharghat, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Kavita Devi, W/o Mukesh Pratihast, Resident of Village- MassaMirzapur, Police Station- Jale, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-01-2018 Mr. Harsh Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 viz. Shyam Sundar Pratihast @ Shyam Sunder has died and, therefore, he prays for deletion of his name from the array of parties. Let the name of petitioner No. 2 viz. Shyam Sundar Pratihast @ Shyam Sunder be deleted from the array of parties.
By the present petition, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 seek transfer of Trial No. 3341/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 2391 of 2014, arising out of Jalley P.S. Case No. 103 of 2014,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27778 of 2017 (6) dt.29-01-2018 2/2 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga to any other judgeship, preferably at Patna. The reason assigned for the aforesaid prayer of transfer of the case is that the father of the informant is a practicing advocate at Darbhanga Civil Court and he has been influencing the course of justice. No proof has been given by the petitioner for substantiating the aforesaid argument. That apart, the anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 1 has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but still he has not surrendered to the process of law.
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U T