Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Deobansh Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 August, 2009

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            Cr.Misc. No.2429 of 2009

Deobansh Tiwary, son of Late Janki Tiwary, village Maniyari, P.S. Kargahar,
District Rohtas Rohtas, at present Mohalla Rajput Colony, PS Sasaram, district
Rohtas - Petitioner.
                                      vs.
   1. The State of Bihar,
   2. Ramji Sah, son of Late Sheo Pujan Sah, village Basdiha, PS Kargahar,
      district Rohtas.
   3. Dr. Moti Chand Sah, son of Jagarnath Sah, resident of Behind Sersah
      Hotel, Faizalganj, Sasaram.
   4. Gulab Sah, son of Jagarnath Sah, village Kharari, PS Kargahar, district
      Rohtas.
   5. Uma Shankar Tiwary, son of Dinanath Tiwary, village Lanka, Varanasi, U.P.
   6. Upendra Singh @ Fudur Singh, son of Shivpati Singh, village Dasdiha, PS
      Kargahar, district Rohtas.
   7. Manoj Singh, son of Bhandul Singh, village Sonbarsa, PS Kargahar,
      district Rohtas - Opposite parties.
                                         ...
         For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Chaubey, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A.N.
         Chaubey, Advocate.
         For the S t a t e : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, A. P. P.
         For the opp. Parties : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay and Mr. Vijay Kumar
         Sinha, Advocates.
                                            ...



2     7.8.2009

This application has been filed challenging the order, dated 5.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas on an application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the court below ought to have applied its mind on the petition so filed and passed a speaking order on the same.

On perusal of the petition which has been produced in court it appears that the petitioner had stated that he is not responsible for kidnapping of the victim Mahendra Gupta and it is the petitioner's brother with whom there was a land dispute who are responsible for the said occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case diary would reveal that the Investigating officer has suspected that the family members may have been responsible for the occurrence. 2 In the circumstances of the case I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate which is under challenged in this application. All these facts may be brought to the notice of the court at the time of framing of the case.

This application is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.

haque                                        (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)