Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cr. Rev.
Cr. Rev.
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Siwan.
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
3. Pappu Mishra,
4. Rameshwar Mishra,
5. Manu Mishra ,
….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
judgment and order dated 8th July, 2014 passed by Sri Abhishek Ranjan ,
arising out of G.R.No.1644 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned
guilty for offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
2. That, the petitioner has not moved either before the learned
Mairwa.
Mishra was taking her son to attend the call of nature his agnates
Rameshwar Mishra , Pappu Mishra and Manu Mishra all sons of Balram
It was the further case of the informant that when they were
asked for not asking the abusive language , Rameshwar Mishra assaulted by
fists and slaps and had snatched the golden chain and nose pin.
when Balram Mishra assaulted on his shoulder by Lathi ( hard and blunt
Farsa and assaulted on the informant’s head as a result of which blood was
oozing from the head injuries and thereafter Pappu Mishra and Manu
Dwijendra Mishra rushed there when he was also assaulted by hard and
blunt substance and when the villagers reached there and intervened ,the
and his treatment was not possible at Primary Health Centre , Mairwa , he
was referred for better treatment to Kanpur Medical College and Hospital
by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre , Mairwa vide letter
dated 01.10.2013.
investigation but since it was found that they are helping the accused
College, Kanpur was issued and when it was received by the Incharge
changed his earlier opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner . It is stated that earlier ,in the opinion of the Incharge Medical
Officer of Mairwa Primary Health Centre ,the nature of injuries sustained
opinion of the doctor of the Medical College, the Incharge Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre Mairwa had changed his opinion and informed
Sheet No.71 of 2004 dated 19.02.2004 for the offences under Sections
341, 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is relevant to state
that the Incharge Medical Officer had already issued supplementary injury
Sections though the petitioner’s protest was available on record but without
hearing ,the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Siwan took cognizance for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 504 /34 of the Indian Penal Code
Prosecution Officer did not inform the court that the materials are
11. That, since the petitioner and his other family members were
residing at Kanpur and ,therefore, they had no detail information about the
events of the case since they had faith that the Assistant Prosecution Officer
12. That, after cognizance the case was transferred to the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan for trial , charges were framed
13. That, though the petitioner was the informant of the case but
14. That, P.W.2 Dwijendra Mishra was examined as P.W.2 .In his
deposition ,he had categorically stated that his father was assaulted by
Balram Mishra on his shoulder with stick and Rameshwar Mishra assaulted
his father on head with axe. Pappu and Manu assaulted his father by stick
15. That, P.W.3 Mohan Mishra and P.W.4 Yugal Mishra had also
supported the prosecution case but very conveniently neither any summon
was issued to the Investigating Officer nor the Medical Officer ,who had
treated the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him and had issued the
injury report.
16. That, even the injury report was not marked as Exhibit in this
17. That, therefore, the trial was conducted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class in most perfunctory manner and it appears that since
the Assistant Prosecution Officer had also gone in collusion of the accused
18. That, since the relevant documents like the injury report ,
petitioner on his head by axe was not brought on record as exhibit nor the
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to depose in the case and bring
those material on record by the impugned judgment and order ,the learned
Judicial Magistrate found the case true only for the offence under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were convicted accordingly and they
19. That, it is stated that being an old man , the petitioner even
without summons appeared before the court for his evidence but for one
reason or the other his evidence could not be recorded and the prosecution
evidence was closed though the petitioner was main witness of the case.
there was a counter case in respect of same occurrence but trial thereof is
still pending .
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the trial was conducted by the learned trial court
III. For that, though there was allegation of causing injury on head
by axe but neither the learned trial court nor the Assistant Prosecution
Officer thought it proper to call for the injury report and get it exhibited .
Even the Fardbeyan was not exhibited in this case only because the
IV. For that , though it is a police case but neither the learned trial
court nor the Assistant Prosecution Officer had taken any steps for
persons.
V. For that, there was a case and counter case in respect of same
be tried simultaneously but in this case, the counter case is still pending
against the petitioners and others whereas the petitioner’s case has been
VI. For that, the impugned judgment and order suffers from
VUI. For that , the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
for the records of the learned trial court and issue notice to the
A N D/ OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
The humble petition on behalf of
and where under the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was
pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the defense to mark Exhibit
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
unknown person that his father died then his brother met with him on
08.09.1995 at Noida and asked about the information of father of his death.
his father proceeded to his village – Yadupatti and when he and his father
reached at the house till the dead body of father was cremated .
-3-
The informant further alleged that he could gent knowledge
Manoj Mishra , Shiv Ratan Mishra , Hari Shankar Chaudhary and Raj
Kumar Manjhi came to his door having armed with Lathi Danda and
started to damage the house upon which his father Parshuram Mishra
restrained them and asked that why they are doing such type of injustice
work upon which Upendra Mishra assaulted his father Parshuram Mishra
the chest of his father by foot and other accused persons also assaulted his
father .
Sunita Devi forbade them to not do so then they left to assault his father .
12.00 in the night his father died duet to injury received by him on the whole
body.
his sister namely Sunita Devi , if she asked about the said incidence to any
one then she will be killed ,therefore, his sister kept mum due to fear .
-4-
The informant further alleged that the accused persons
cremated his father Parshuram Mishra in the earth due to conceal the
evidence.
had opened a shop of tea and sweets forcibly at the land of the petitioner
and on asking ,he said that Upendra Mishra had provided the land to him for
registered as Complaint Case No.219 of 1995 and the same was sent to the
the case.
First Information Report and registered a case being Pupri P.S. Case
-5-
marked as ANNEXURE- “1” to this
petition.
against Sri Malwar Mishra , Ajay Kumar Mishra , Samir Kumar Mishra ,
Sudhir Kumar Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Mishra stating therein that on
sons came at the Khalihan and asked that he ( Ram Babu Mishra ) made a
witness in the case of Umesh Mishra ,they will kill him and also to
implicate him after dying of Parshuram Mishra ,in Murder case . Thereafter
sons of Malwar Mishra abused and started to assault him and in the mean
time his villager- Uday Mishra , Shiv Ratan Mishra , Ramashish Mishra and
others came there as a result of which his life could be saved. It appears
that after killing Parshuram Mishra ,Malwar Mishra will implicate him and
his family members in a murder case . For the said incidence , he had
in Station Diary being NO.208 dated 18.01.1992 for which an enquiry was
made .
registered as Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 under Section 107 of
-6-
A true photo stat/ typed copy of the
that Malwar Mishra had asked to Ram Babu Mishra after dying of
Parshuram Mishra , he will implicate him and his entire family members in
to mark Exhibit in the present case for proper adjudication of the case to
show the innocence of the accused persons of Pupri P.S. Case No.148 of
1995.
Report bearing Pupri P.S. Case No.148 of 1995 ,the police submitted
Magistrate.
filed before the learned trial court on 23.05.2014 along with certified copy
of paper of Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. NO.01 /95 for marking Exhibit or to call
for the original record from the court of Sub-Divisional Officer , Pupri for
Exhibit.
-7-
A true photo stat copy of the petition
this petition.
18.01.1995 filed by Ram Babu Mishra to the Out Post Incharge ,Yadupatti
upon which Sanha Entry No.208 was lodged ,had already been marked as
Ext. C in the instant case on the request of the defence but due to mistake at
that relevant time the copy of Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 was not produced
13. That, it is stated that the said document i.e. Non- F.I.R. No.01
not take into consideration this vital document to mark as exhibit for proper
adjudication of the case in the interest of justice and dismissed the petition
filed by the defense by the impugned order merely on the ground that the
defense has filed the instant petition only to linger in disposal of the case.
-8-
the above named petitioner begs to prefer this
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
No.01 of 1995 filed by Ram Babu Mishra ,it is categorically mentioned that
III. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
earlier , the said document was not pressed by the defence for marking it as
Exhibit.
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
important for proper adjudication of the case , at any stage prior to judgment
Pupri P.S. Non- F.I.R. No.01 of 1995 is injustice with the defence since it
is most important document to come out the final conclusion of the trial.
VI. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
for the records and issue notice to the opposite-party no.2 and
Judge , Sitamarhi.
A N D/ OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit
A ND
IN
early hearing ;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
-2-
the petitioner above named for early hearing of Cr. Rev. No.499 of 2008
of Trade Enquiry for the post of Technician Grade-II ( Crain Driver ) and
( Crain Driver ) in the year 2001 itself but after being declared successful
order dated 02.09.2013 passed by Sri N.K. Tripathy ,the learned Judicial
2003 by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 323 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to giving them the benefit of under
promotion then he asked to declare the probation period ,if any passed by the
court of law ,herein , the case of the petitioner , the petitioner filed aforesaid
criminal revision for setting aside the order of the learned trial court as well
as the appellate court . In such a situation ,it will be better for the petitioner
-3-
which the petitioner filed the present interlocutory application for early
any heinous crime ,so that the petitioner is being deprived for his due
5. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the present
AND/OR
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
The State of Bihar and others…………………RESPONDENTS.
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
No.234 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional
were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354 of the
Prosecutor ,the petitioner had also engaged a lawyer before the learned
trial court and the petitioner is under the impression that the learned
counsel engaged by him would inform about the judgment of the case but
the learned counsel did not inform about the order passed by the learned
trial court.
March, 2014 when the petitioner heard a rumour that the accused persons
-3-
of the case has been acquitted by the learned trial court then the petitioner
immediately contacted the said Advocate of the learned trial court then he
came at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and the instant petition is
being filed.
petitioner .
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
To,
petitioner above named is directed against the judgment and order dated
No.234 of 2013 , whereby and where under the learned Sub- Divisional
were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354 of the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
-3-
Parmeshwar Dayal Sah at the time of occurrence he was behind the jail in
connection with Sursand P.S. Case No.05 of 2007 and on 01.03.2002 ,he
had got the sale-deed with respect to land of Khata No.101 , Khesra
No.425 , measuring an area ½ decimal from one Yogendra Sah and also
that the accused persons (Respondent nos. 2 to 5 ) and others are carrying
glass and iron from the hut situated in the said land as also putting a
he , his sister Siya Devi and villager witness Habib Rain had got to the
place of occurrence and asked them to not do so upon which all the accused
accused Ram Pravesh Thakur ,all the accused persons abused his sister in
filthy language as also assaulted her . The accused Ram Pravesh Thakur
registered as Complaint Case No.257 of 2007 and the same was sent to
-4-
the concerned Police Station by the court under Section 156(3) Code of
accused persons under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
was sent for trial and on the basis of evidence Section 354 of the Indian
-5-
10. That, it is stated that apart from the oral evidence one
11. That, it is stated that on behalf of defense only one witness was
12. That, apart from the oral witness on behalf of defense some
13. That, it is stated that all the witnesses including the independent
witness P.W2 Habib Rain have fully supported the prosecution version as
independent witness P.W.2 Md. Habib Rain that the accused persons were
removing the iron and on protest by Siya Devi ( P.W.5) ,the accused
persons abused and assaulted as also accused Ram Pravesh Thakur opened
-6-
16. That, the defense has failed to deny the version as spelt out in
the complaint petition as also the evidence come during the course of
17. That, it is stated that even in the cross –examination none of the
witnesses betrayed from their consistent statement even though the learned
trial court without going into the facts in detail passed the impugned
judgment and order by acquitted the accused persons vide judgment and
GR OUNDS:
facts.
II. For that , the learned trial court has not perused the evidence
-7-
III. For that, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused
persons i.e. Respondent no.2 to 6 without taking into consideration that the
IV. For that, while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
deposition of witnesses .
trial court failed to appreciate that the independent witness P.W.2 Habi Rain
categorically stated that on asking of P.W.5 ,he had gone to the place of
occurrence where the accused persons abused and assaulted the P.W.5 as
trial court failed to appreciate that the defense has failed to betray the
VII. For that, while acquitting the accused persons ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that all the witnesses have fully supported the
prosecution version .
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order on the point of
Respondent ,call for the records of learned trial court and after
-8-
A N D /O R
Pass such other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
Upendra Paswan ….………………………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1-617 of 2006 , Trial No.02 of 2011
whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
pleased to acquit the accused persons who were charged for the offence
under Sections 384, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (X) ,
3(1) (ix) ,3(II) (V) , 3 (II)(VI) and 3 (II) (VII) of the S.C. /S.T. Prevention
of Atrocities Act .
Prosecutor ,the petitioner had deputed a private Clerk of the Civil Court
to watch out the case and inform about the development of the case but the
said Private
Clerk did not inform about the said judgment and order and the petitioner
-3-
when the petitioner heard a rumour that the accused persons of the case has
been acquitted by the learned trial court then the petitioner immediately
contacted the said private Clerk of the Civil Court then he asked the
came at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and the instant petition is
being filed.
petitioner .
9. That, if the delay in filing of the revision application is not
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2014.
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur whereby and where
under the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs.500/- to the
under the impression that the matter come to an end on 4-5 dates ,therefore,
the petitioner could not approach this Hon'ble Court ,challenging the said
order .
several dates ,then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
in the lower court advised the petitioner to challenge the said order before
this Hon'ble Court and accordingly the petitioner approached the present
filed for which there is no limitation but the stamp reporter pointed out the
defect that the quashing application is not maintainable and accordingly the
-3-
petitioner .
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
Principal Judge , Family Court, Sitamarhi , whereby and where under the
learned Principal Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay interim
Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) per month till the disposal of the
case .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that her
marriage was performed with the petitioner on 02.02.2006 and from their
wedlock three issues were born out namely Asha Kumari, Ayush ah and
Ichha Kumari .
beginning the petitioner always demand money and also induced to ask
money from her parents and in the event of refusal the petitioner and his
-3-
other family members always tortured her and threatened for dire
consequences.
July, 2010, she was forcibly ousted from the in-law’s house with a threat
that if in future she will try to come to the in-law’s house then she will
incidence , she lodged a case against the petitioner and others in Police
Station under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as Bairgania P.S. Case
No.82 of 2010.
anticipatory bail , the petitioner assured the learned court that he will keep
the Opposite-party no.2 with all dignity and honour and accordingly the
paragraph was granted bail and by the order of the court the petitioner took
the petitioner again came in his earlier from and again started demanding
the articles and cash and on non-fulfillment the said demand , she was
deserted her life and is not taking care either to her or the children as a
-4-
result of which she and her children is at the verge of starvation.
sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount to her and her children
Welfare Foundation and in this regard an invitation letter was issued by the
09.01.2006.
-5-
is annexed herewith and marked as
petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 put their signature and the same was
petition.
clear that the marriage of the petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 was
the lady of questionable character and she is habitual to lodge false cases
against the innocent persons only to harass them as also to create hurdle in
2008 by the mother of the Opposite-party no.2 namely Rani Devi against
Bunni Lal Sah and Hari Shankar Chaudhary is the example of that .
-6-
annexed herewith and marked as
20.08.2008 under Sections 147, 149, 353, 337, 307, 114, 379 , 388 and 504
of the Indian Penal Code against the mother of the Opposite-party no.2
namely Rani Devi and others when they creating obstacle and nuisance in
this petition.
the Bank , the petitioner started a business of readymade shop but due to
bad luck the said business did not run properly and in the mean time the
petitioner met with an accident in the year 2013 in which both legs and
other part of the body has been fractured which is evident from the Medical
Prescription itself.
-7-
marked as ANNEXURE- “6” to this
petition.
business ,the petitioner could not re-pay the Bank Loan amount ,therefore,
the Branch Manager , State Bank of India , Bairgania sent a notice to the
petitioner vide notice dated 31.01.2013 wherein the petitioner was asked to
petitioner is farmer and in the share of father of the petitioner there is only
6 Bighas of land and the petitioner has four brothers and three sister out of
12. That, it is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner was
hardly earning Rs.3,000/- per month and after accident he is not earning any
13. That, it is stated that the petitioner has four children out of
which two children are living with the petitioner and two are living with the
Opposite-party .
-8-
14. That, it is stated that Opposite-party no.2 had done all these
things on the instances of her mother ,who is the lady of questionable and
litigating character lady and the Opposite-party no.2 is in full grip of her
mother .
15. That, the fact is that the petitioner neither demanded any cash
or articles nor tortured the Opposite-party no.2 nor ousted from the house at
any point of time rather the petitioner loved the petitioner with his inner
heart but the Opposite-party no.2 at the instances of her mother had done all
these things.
appeared and filed his show-cause ,denying all the facts in detail as
party no.2 along with the children and maintain them ,therefore, in such a
-9-
the Opposite-party no.2 and her children Rs.5,000/- per month without
18. That, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
no.2 with her children and maintain them ,therefore, there is no occasion to
Opposite-party no.2 though the court should have directed the Opposite-
-10-
III. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
denial of the Opposite-party no.2 on this point then it is not proper for the
learned Principal Judge to direct the petitioner to pay the heavy amount of
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has fixed the amount of
Principle Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner met with an accident
in which his both legs and other part of the body fractured and he is fully
dependant on others .
VI. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-11-
No.04 of 2012 by learned Principal Judge ,
A N D/ OR
A ND
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
1. That, this interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of
the petitioners above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioners have not filed any application like the
No.27 of 2009 / 03 of 2012 and during the pendency of the appeal the
filed by the petitioners was dismissed and judgment and order of the
learned trial court was upheld but the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners before the learned appellate court could not inform the
petitioners ,therefore, the petitioners could not get knowledge about the
said order.
-3-
6. That, it is stated that when the petitioners contacted the learned
counsel in the second week of December ,2013 ,then they could get
17.12.2013 and in this regard a surrender slip dated 17.12.2013 issued by the
come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and handed over the File to
file the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
petitioner .
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
-4-
AND/OR
was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi vide Cr.
Appeal No.27 of 2009/03 of 2012 which was heard by the learned Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge -1 , Sitamarhi and dismissed vide its order dated
28.02.2013 and confirmed the order of learned trial court dated 13.05.2009.
GROUNDS:
(i) For that the impugned order dated 28.02.2013 is bad in law as
CAUSE TITLE
-2-
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class , Danapur in Case No. 1312/1980 (G.R. No.)
621/2013 (Tr. No.)
arising out of Bikram P.S. Case No.01 of 1980 by which he has been
pleased to acquit both the accused persons without applying his judicial
mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved earlier in this case either in
the Hon'ble High Court or before the learned Sessions Judge ,Patna against
Bans Layak Singh died in the year 1994 and his wife also died during his
life time .The informant was issueless and the petitioner is his Bhagina
( sister’s son ) in whose favour the informant has executed a WILL with
regard to all his property including the land with regard to which the
-3-
the informant was her legal heir and was inherited the property of Late
Subhagiya Devi.
4. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that the informant had
Khata No.83 , Plot No.2349 , 2362 ,2319, 4314,4518 and 4415 . It is further
alleged that he knows that the accused Satyadeo Sharma and Nagendra Deo
Sharma had set up their own mother Maha Sundari Devi to impersonate for
alleged that the Mosmat Subhagiya Devi was the aunt of the informant and
she live with the informant during her life time and she had expired on
16.08.1980 because she was ailing since about 3 months prior to the date
of occurrence in the case and she never went out to be able to execute any
Subhagiya Devi was aged about 90 years and was not able to move about
freely from inside the house and had to be assisted by some one in the house
of the informant to attend her natural calls . It is further alleged that the
Maha Sundari Devi who has lent her services dishonestly and fraudulently
-4-
to appear and imposter for Subhagiya Devi and thereby have attended and
the informant got certified copy of the document and the document has not
Maha Sundari Devi ,who had put her thumb impression. It is further
alleged that the accused persons Ram Kewal Singh and Sheo Kumar
Mishir had also joined in conspiracy for fabrication of the document with
arrest the accused persons and obtain the thumb impression for the purpose
impending the original document from the Registration Office . The learned
to Bikram Police Station to register the case and the Bikram P.S. Case
No.01 of 1980 80 Under Sections 419, 465, 467 and 120(B) of the Indian
Danapur took cognizance against all the accused persons and the case
record was transferred in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class ,
-5-
Danapur for trial and disposal and lastly it was received in this court on
10.07.2011.
13.08.1984 . The name of the accused persons Mahasundari Devi and the
because they have died . The name of the accused person Shiv Kumar was
also deleted vide order dated 16.06.2006 due to death and rest accused
Secretary which has later been duly cancelled by Project Executive Officer
-6-
certificate before the learned trial court and was made Exhibit-A and has
also been relied upon by the learned trial court and on the basis of
aforesaid collusive death certificate , the learned trial court did not accept
the prosecution case that Subhagiya Devi was already died on 16.08.1980
11. That, the accused persons have also submitted that certified
copy of the aforesaid sale-deed executed on 18.08.1980 and the same was
made Exhibit- B.
12. That, according to the defense case itself the original sale-deed
real owner of the said land in question . The original sale-deed has been
suppressed by the accused persons with the sole intention that the signature/
Subhagiya Devi.
-7-
13. That, the crux of the matter is that Subhagiya Devi died on
thus any evidence of eye witness is not the crucial thing to be proved by
the prosecution.
14. That, the learned trial court has erred in drawing adverse
Devi ,who also died during the primary stage of the trial and as such the
existence.
15. That, the learned trial court had also erred in drawing adverse
inference on the ground that the informant had not filed any suit for
impersonation.
Subhagiya Devi in their favour the learned trial court has erred in giving
undue wait on the irrelevant evidence not given by the informant with
transferred through the impugned sale-deed and as such the learned trial
-8-
erroneously holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove his
question is in possession of the accused persons ,who had simply filed and
got exhibited the certified copy of the sale-deed and as such the learned
trial court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not filed /exhibited
court to the Police for registration and investigation of the case by the
Police and the said complaint filed in the court was made basis of the
that regard the learned trial court has erred in holding that First Information
Report bears no signature of the complaint /informant and the signature has
19. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the finding
of the learned trial court that the prosecution has not produced certified
20. That, the finding of the learned trial court that no relative of
-9-
against the records of the case Late Subhagiya Devi was aunt of P.W.4 and
was living with P.W.4 as P.W.4 was only legal heir of Late Subhagiya Devi,
by the learned trial court the accused persons have been acquitted by the
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the findings given by the learned trial court are
perverse and against the records of the case which have erroneously
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious error of
-10-
IV. For that, impugned judgment and order of acquittal has been
V. For that the learned trial court has erroneously drawn adverse
accused persons.
It is ,therefore, prayed that your Lordships may
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
named;
-2-
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
10.05.2013 and thereafter the statement of the two accused persons facing
witness as P.W.4 on 09.01.1987 ,the learned A.P.P. had told the informant
informant was simply waiting for the conclusion of the trial and during the
5. That, thereafter the petitioner also kept watching the case .But
during the aforesaid long period taken by the defense and kept the trial
-3-
the paddy from his inherited land , he came to know about the acquittal of
he inquired about the case from the court’s records and came to know that
lawyer in the Hon'ble High Court in order to move the High Court against
the order and judgment of acquittal. The lawyer during the aforesaid
the case which has been handed over to the counsel Sri Jitendra Nath
Tiwary and thereafter without causing any further delay the revision
filing of the revision petition is not deliberate as the petitioner has taken
all sincere efforts for filing the revision petition in the hi has been taken
after the knowledge of passing of the impugned judgment and order dated
30.08.2013.
-4-
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Munger.
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
-2-
is directed against the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by learned Sri S.K.
pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 67 and
68 of the Evidence Act to get the mark the sale-deed exhibited in the case .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
Case No.278 of 2010 dated 01.07.2010 registered for the offences under
Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 341 , 323, 452 , 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code , who lodged the aforesaid case against 10 accused persons for
committing attempt to murder and other offences also and the cause
behind the occurrence is the land which was purchased by the petitioner
from one Hussamuddin with constructed building and some portion of the
house own and possessed by Husammudin himself upon which one Md.
Ezaz , Md.Iftekhar Ali are the boundary raiyat ,whose houses are just
adjacent to the house of the petitioner and Husamuddin but the said
adjacent house owner Ezaz and Iftekhar Ali are claiming their ownership of
the land purchased by the petitioner . Initially the vendor of the house of the
-3-
No.3002 .
application.
4. That, not even only the Husamuddin filed a Title Suit No.49
of 2013 which was pending in the court of learned Sub- Judge-2 nd Munger
against Md. Ezaz and others for declaration of his right title and ownership
Sessions Case No.231 of 2011 arising out of aforesaid Kotwali P.S. Case
payment of money receipt and other details has already been submitted by
way of list of documents and a photo stat copy of the list of the documents
5. That, but the learned trial court did not eager to treat the sale-
-4-
call for the Register of Volume No.43 Page Nos. 100 to 108 from the
Registry Office, Sadar Munger ,so that the registered sale-deed can be
exhibited .On the contrary it is said that the petitioner is the tenant and
did not purchase the land as mentioned above . In this contention , the
prove the sale-deed there is no necessity to call for the said Register from
the Registry Office and he rejected the petition of the petitioner dated
03.06.2013.
25.07.2013 which was disposed of by the learned trial court vide order
-5-
Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act under which provision the proof of
well as instruction of the learned trial court , the petitioner filed a petition
under Section 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act but the learned trial court
Act dated 24.09.2013 and passed the order impugned on the same day
next day.
this application.
issue in proper manner and without being prejudiced either of the parties
where the issues raised that the sale-deed is important and necessary
defense raised an objection to not exhibit and mark the sale-deed ,so that the
case of prosecution can be failed . In this way ,it is very much necessary to
-6-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the
issue raised by the petitioner for exhibit marked of the sale-deed which is
the cause of action of the petitioner but the learned trial court passed the
III. For that, the learned trial court failed to enumerate the
Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act and pass the impugned order which
IV. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider to examine
the case in totality and its consequences and pass the impugned order
V. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-7-
case .
A N D/ OR
AND
be stayed.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
1. That, this interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
Sheohar ,the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No.108 of 2011
and during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner was enlarged on bail .
filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and order of the
learned trial court was upheld but the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner before the learned appellate court could not inform the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not get knowledge about the said
order.
counsel in the last week of October , 2013 ,then he could get knowledge
-3-
about the order dated 01.06.2013 and he immediately surrendered before the
this regard a surrender slip dated 31.10.2013 issued by the learned Sub-
come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and handed over the File to
file the present criminal revision application and accordingly the instant
petitioner .
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
-4-
AND/OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
The humble petition on behalf of
2013 ,whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur
was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirm the
registered for the offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code
by which the learned Juvenile Justice Board was refused to grant bail to
the petitioner .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
filed a written report before the Out Post Incharge of Jaitpur Out Post
daughter namely Soni Kumari aged about -14 years had gone to call of
nature outside the house and during the course of returning Manoj Kumar
-3-
(petitioner herein ) had tried to commit illegal work with his daughter after
any how come to the house in weeping and narrated about the occurrence.
and registered a case being Saraiya P.S. Case No.93 of 2013 dated
Code .
Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur arising out of Saraiya P.S. Case No.93
-4-
8. That, it is stated that the petitioner is minor since the petitioner
is aged about 17 years and his date of birth is 13.04.1996 which is evident
from the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
the informant lodged the instant case with false and concocted allegation
only with a view to spoil the bright career of the petitioner since there is
11. That, it is admitted fact that the family of the petitioner and the
-5-
13. That, it is stated that according to the First Information Report
27.04.2013 at 9.30 A.M. though the distance of the police- station is hardly
7 K.M.
14. That, the fact is that the petitioner has not committed any such
offence as alleged in the First Information Report and for the moment if the
petitioner then he is not waiting for his arrest rather he fled away from the
house but the petitioner did not do so which falsifies the entire prosecution
version .
15. That, it is stated that the petitioner was behind the bars since
27.04.2013 i.e. since the date of institution of the First Information Report
itself.
16. That, even though the petitioner was declared juvenile when
his bail application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice
-6-
ANNEXURE-“3” for identification
Cr. Appeal No.73 of 2013 wherein vide order dated 25,09,2013 ,the learned
petitioner’s prayer for bail on the ground that if the appellant is released on
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that prayer for bail of a juvenile can be
-7-
rejected only on the ground mentioned in the Juvenile Justice Act and for no
other reason.
Sessions Judge for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail is alien to the
eye of law.
IV. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate the facts of the case that according to birth
V. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate that the parents of the petitioner undertake to take
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
also failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case by the informant due to enmity only with a view to ruin the
-8-
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
VIII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
-9-
AND/OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Resident of village- Prem Tola , Farda , P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District –
Munger.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 05.07. 2013 passed by learned Sri Surendra Kumar
Choubey the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger in Cr. Appeal No.95 of 2013
,whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge , Munger was
pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated
which the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger was pleased to reject
2012 arising out of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.161 of 2012 registered
for the offence under Sections 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
Report ,in brief , is that the informant who is the Out Post Incharge of
-3-
27.10.2012 at about 23.30 O’clock having got secret information that the
suspicion , the miscreants started firing and the police force arrested four
accused persons including this petitioner and all of them were search and
one double barrel gun was recovered from Deepak Yadav , one country
made pistol was recovered from Rahul Yadav and one country made pistol
and one cartridge was recovered from the petitioner and the details of arms
informant , Naya Ram Nagar ( Safiasarai ) P.S. Case No.161 of 2012 dated
28.10.2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 353, 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) A /26/27/35 of the Arms Act.
application.
-4-
implicated in this case because the father of the petitioner was asked to put
his signature on a blank paper for preparation of seizure list when the other
three accused persons were arrested and on denial some altercation took
Meanwhile ,having heard the alarm and sound of his father , the petitioner
reached there and started to rescue his father with the altercation between
the police and others , meanwhile the police has taken abroad the petitioner
on his Jeep and booked the petitioner in the present case by showing the
Justice Board and thereafter the petitioner moved his application before the
arms ,which was planted by the police at the instance of enemy of the
petitioner .
-5-
learned Sessions Judge ,Munger and the learned Sessions Judge himself
without being examined the facts and circumstances as well as without
known criminals and the petitioner may be exposed to moral ,physical and
psychological danger and the learned court drew his opinion that it is not
proper to release the petitioner on bail and by observing the aforesaid facts
GROUNDS:
illegal to say that the petitioner is about to attain the age of majority and
-6-
III. For that ,the petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and there is
in this regard that the petitioner will live under the command and
planted the case in retaliation due to the father of the petitioner was not
ready to put his signature on a blank paper for the purposes of preparation
of seizure list.
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
-7-
AND/OR
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
before this Hon'ble Court and the same was registered but the same was
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , there is no time bar under
revision application could not be filed within the prescribed period for filing
of revision application .
latches on the part of the petitioner and whole thing has been happened due
to lack of knowledge .
-3-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
is for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sri Awadhesh
learned Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the complaint petition filed
by the petitioner and directed the office to deposit the case records in the
Record Room.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
-3-
accused no.2 (Opposite-party no.3) restrained him and his witnesses and
told them about the purpose to come there then he and the witnesses told
the accused no.2 that they have already filed a requisition for certified
copy in the Copying Department upon which the accused no.2 he started
The complaint further alleged that the accused no.2 took him
half hour and they have been left free after taking the bond in presence of
for enquiry .
-4-
petition.
course of enquiry three witnesses were examined such as Ram Janam Singh
, Govind Kumar and Nathuni Rai , who have also fully supported the
petition.
7. That, it is stated that the petitioner had also produced the copy
of the requisition filed by the petitioner before the Copying Department for
-5-
bearing Requisition No.1731 , 1732 and 1733 before the learned trial court.
petition.
the bond dated 23.08.2011 by which the petitioner and other witnesses
were released from the custody of the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 on the
undertaking that they did not enter in the Record Room –cum- Copying
Section in future before the learned court below . The said bond was
-6-
5 it is apparently clear that the petitioner had applied for certified copy of
12 .08.2011 but till 23.08.2011 the certified copy of the same was not
supplied to the petitioner and when the petitioner along with the witnesses
visited the office of Copying Section to enquire about the position of the
supply of the certified copy then the Opposite-party no.3 misbehaved with
the petitioner and the witnesses and also kept under the custody and after
taking bond released them with the warning that they did not visit the
assigned to them but they did not discharge their public duties and when the
vested in them then they abused and threatened the petitioner and the
witnesses as also to take the petitioner and witnesses in custody to teach the
11. That, it is also the fact on record that the requisition has been
filed by the petitioner for supply of the certified copy on 12.08.2011 and
till 23.08.2011 no copy was supplied to the petitioner and when the
petitioner enquired about the same then the petitioner was abused and kept
in custody which shows the abuse of the power vested in the public servant.
-7-
Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner
servant ,therefore, they are protected by the provisions of Section 197 of the
record that the public servants are misusing their powers in discharge of the
public duties , they are liable to be prosecuted under the Act and in the
14. That, in view of the aforesaid facts the impugned order passed
to be set aside .
-8-
GROUNDS:
on facts .
II. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
was filed by the petitioner for supplying the certified copy of the documents
in the Copying Section on 12.08.2011 but no copy was supplied till
22.08.2011 and when the petitioner and witnesses go before the Opposite-
party no.3 to know about the position ,then the Opposite-party no.3 abused
III. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
petitioner ,the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that all the witnesses
as well as the petitioner fully supported the prosecution version as spelt out
IV. For that, while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the
made by the petitioner in the complaint petition was fully supported by the
Magistrate ought to have considered that since the Opposite-parties are the
-9-
Code of Criminal Procedure even though they misused and abused their
VII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that your
A N D/ OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Champaran .
……………………(Accused) PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
The humble petition on behalf of
2012 and the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice
Board , Bettiah , West Champaran for bail in Case No. J.J.B. Tr. No.223 of
2013 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 but the same
has been rejected on 25.05.2013 and the petitioner preferred appeal but the
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court earlier
against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No.56 of 2013.
Charge of Gopalpur P.S. along with other police personnel reached near
Dhodhai Bridge and saw one Motor Cycle was coming from north on which
-3-
4. That, he further stated that during in course of search he
found one plastic bag and one sock and when the informant asked about the
bags then the accused persons stated that there is Ganja and Charas kept in
the bags.
witnesses namely Dhanai Sah and Hira Lal Sah searched the bags and
names as Ruddu Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey and Minku Pandey and
they disclosed the alleged contrabands belongs to one Kof Sharif Gaddi
and said Kof Sharif Gaddi handed over the contrabands to the accused
persons at Sikta and said to deliver the contrabands in Bettiah then money
said that the alleged Motorcycle belongs to him and after that in the
-4-
this petition.
10. That, the petitioner is student and he has nothing to do with the
seized contrabands.
11. That, in this case mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act has not
been complied.
Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey ,who is similar to the petitioner and has
14. That, the petitioner has been rotting in jail since 22.04.2012.
-5-
Magistrate , Juvenile Justice Board , Bettiah , West
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
petitioner .
IV. For that, the judgment and order is otherwise bad ,illegal and
-6-
Justice Board , Bettiah , West Champaran in
And for this ,the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
Sadar Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No.89
of 2011 and during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner was enlarged
on bail .
filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and order of the
learned trial court was upheld but the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner before the learned trial court could not inform the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not get knowledge about the said
order.
-3-
counsel in the second week of July, 2013 ,then he could get knowledge
July, 2013 ,he had come at Patna and contacted the learned counsel and
handed over the File to file the present criminal revision application and
petitioner .
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.89 of 2011 whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed
by the petitioner and affirm the judgment and order on the point of
convict the petitioner under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
filed a complaint petition alleging therein that she has allegedly solemnized
marriage with the petitioner on 22.08.2005 at Janki Mandir , Sitamarhi with
to take motorcycle as dowry for which he has filed a petition before the
-3-
report saying that complainant along with the petitioner resides after
appeared before the Notary Public at Sitamarhi and sworn their respective
village- Anhari but after some time in course of demand of dowry , she was
tortured and after snatching her ornaments worth Rs.25,000/- she was
dragged out of the house after giving threatening to kill her. She came back
at her Naihar and filed the present complaint in the court against the
the inquiry was made by the court and after inquiry the learned Sub-
the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 498(A) , 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
498(A) , 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others and aforesaid charges
-4-
were read over and explained to the petitioner and others. At the time of
framing of the charges , the petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried .
case such as photographs have been marked as Ext. X , S/1, X/2 and X/3
Ext. 1 and 1/1 and signature of the complainant on the complaint petition
-5-
Sitamarhi
Anhari.
10. That, it is stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the father and mother
of the complainant whereas P.W.3 complainant herself and P.W.5 is the co-
villager ,it means that all the prosecution witnesses are the interested
witnesses ,therefore, their statement are not trustworthy and they gave their
12. That, it is stated that the complainant P.W.3 claimed that her
(Ext.B) which was issued on the basis of marriage register speaks that no
any marriage was performed in the temple on 22.08.2005 which also
Middle School (Ext. C) of the petitioner shows that at the time of so-
called marriage ,the petitioner was minor ,therefore, on that ground the so-
-6-
the petitioner before the Notary Public no any other document shows that
the marriage of the complainant was performed with the petitioner and its
15. That, it is stated that the defense witness D.W.1 Anil Kumar
Gupta deposed before the Court that the photograph which have been
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- disbelieving the
genuine and valid documents produced on behalf of the defense and relying
upon the affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the Notary Public and
17. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
-7-
Sadar Sitamarhi ,the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was
registered as Cr. Appeal No.89 of 2011 and during the pendency of appeal,
18. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal filed by the
petitioner was finally heard by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge -4, Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirm the order passed by the learned trial court.
19. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-8-
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to examine the independent witnesses and all the witnesses are
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
the Janki Mandir where the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant
was performed on 22.08.2005 granted certificate (Ext.B ) that on
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that at the time of so-
called marriage the petitioner was minor which is evident from the Transfer
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the D.W.1 in his
-9-
deposition deposed that the photograph which have been submitted by the
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
produced on behalf of the petitioner and relied upon the affidavit sworn by
document since it was not proved by the prosecution as a valid and genuine
document .
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the so-called date of
justice.
-10-
AND/OR
Sadar Sitamarhi.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
Subodh Kumar Singh ………….…………………..…PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
revision application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.197 of 2004 ex-parte i.e.
petitioner could heard the rumour that the accused persons are left free from
the charges then he immediately enquired the matter and found that his
protest petition has already been rejected by the impugned order dated
27.11.2009.
then an information was supplied that the service report has not been
petitioner .
-3-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
setting aside the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Hajipur Sadar P.S.
Adalat , Vaishali at Hajipur , whereby and where under the protest petition
filed by the petitioner was rejected and accept the final form submitted by
the Investigating Officer and also directed to deposit the records in the
Record Room.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Vaishali at Hajipur earlier against the
no.1 ) ,who is the own brother of the petitioner and other accused persons
-3-
are son of the accused no.1 and he had purchased a Truck bearing Reg.
his house and after two days the Opposite-party no.2 came to his house and
in present of the parents and brother the Opposite-party no.2 requested the
petitioner to handover the truck for its running to him on yearly Rs.72,000/-
as also the maintenance and taxes will be born by the Opposite-party no.2.
paid only Rs.1 Lac to him till date and the Opposite-party no.2 did not pay
Rs.18-19 Lacs even after repeated request made by the petitioner and only
assurances has been given that the income of truck has been invested in
business and its profit as well as the share of the property will be given to
him which was earned from the income of the truck. Since the Opposite-
party no.2 is the own brother of the petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner
younger brother of the petitioner namely Manoj Singh in the year 1993 and
The petitioner further said that from the said income , the
Opposite-party no.2 possessed the property in the name of her wife and
-4-
when he asked share from the accused persons then the accused persons in
connivance with the other kidnapped the son of the petitioner namely
Saurav Kumar on 18.05.2013 for which Town P.S. Case No.275 of 2013
was instituted .
same was sent to the concerned Police- Station under Section -156(3) of the
registered a case being Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.197 of 2004 dated
18.05.2004 attributing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34
-5-
Report ,the police proceeded with the investigation and the Investigating
against the accused persons under Section 406, 420, 467 , 406 ,120(B) /34
Indian Penal Code saying civil dispute vide Final Form No.280 of 2004
dated 09.10.2004.
petition.
the Final Form seeing the conduct of the Investigating Officer of the case ,
the petitioner filed a protest petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 28.06.2004.
-6-
petitioner for fixing the date 02.06.2005 but the said notice was not served
petition.
9. That, it is stated that since no summons were served to the
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the learned
court below.
long ,therefore, the case was sent to the Special Lok Adalat but the Special
Lok Adalat prior to passing the impugned order , no notice was sent either to
the petitioner or to the accused persons for their appearance and sue- motto
passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 that since Investigating Officer
had submitted final form or saying civil dispute ,therefore, the protest
-7-
11. That, it is that the petitioner has got no knowledge about the
impugned order dated 27.11.2009 and when the petitioner could rumour
that the accused persons are left free from the cases then he enquired the
case then found that his protest petition has already been rejected by the
informant and accused persons as also the service report of summons upon
which on the back of requisition ,the information was supplied that the
Vakalatnama was not filed on behalf of the accused persons and summons
supply the service report upon which the office had supplied an information
that the service report has not been received in the office.
-8-
14. That, it is stated that since the impugned order has been passed
by the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Lok Adalat without hearing
the parties ,therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
15. That, it is stated that if the accused persons are left free from
the said charges ,which is miscarriage of justice with the petitioner and
abuse of the process of the court of law since in future the accused persons
by the Presiding Officer of the Special Lok Adalat is fit to be set aside .
other following
GROUNDS:
-9-
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
III. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
the petitioner had already filed a protest petition against the police
police , the learned Magistrate should have notice to the respective parties
prior to coming any conclusion but the learned Magistrate did not do so .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
Presiding Officer of Special Lok Adalat is failed to appreciate that the Lok
Adalat was constituted only for the purposes to settle the issue on the
consent of both the parties but in the present case notices were not issued to
VI. For that , the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of
the Special Lok Adalat is illegal , improper and the same is fit to be set
aside.
-10-
VII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
at Hajipur.
A N D/ OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………(Accused) PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Her
Pandey ,who is innocent but he has been falsely implicated in a case under
No.48 of 2012 and the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile
Justice Board , Bettiah, West Champaran on 20.07.2012 and after that the
Board , Bettiah , West Champaran for bail in Case No. J.J.B. Tr. No.285 of
2012 in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 but the same
has been rejected on 27.07.2012 and the petitioner preferred appeal but the
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court earlier
against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No.93 of 2012.
Charge of Gopalpur P.S. along with other police personnel reached near
-3-
Dhodhai Bridge and saw one Motor Cycle was coming from north on which
found one plastic bag and one sock and when the informant asked about the
bags then the accused persons stated that there is Ganja and Charas kept in
the bags.
witnesses namely Dhanai Sah and Hira Lal Sah searched the bags and
names as Ruddu Pandey @ Vijit Kumar Pandey and Minku Pandey and
they disclosed the alleged contrabands belongs to one Kof Sharif Gaddi
and said Kof Sharif Gaddi handed over the contrabands to the accused
persons at Sikta and said to deliver the contrabands in Bettiah then money
said that the alleged Motorcycle belongs to him and after that in the
-4-
8. That, on the basis of statement of informant , a case was
petition.
10. That, the petitioner is student and he has nothing to do with the
seized contrabands.
11. That, in this case mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act has not
been complied.
13. That, the petitioner has been rotting in jail since 22.04.2012.
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
IV. For that, the judgment and order is otherwise bad ,illegal and
-6-
Gopalpur P.S. Case No.48 of 2012 and further be
And for this ,the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .
IN
Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
1. That, this interlocutory application is being filed on behalf of
Revision No.1007 of 2009 which was admitted by this Hon'ble Court and
outside the State for his livelihood and he does not want to proceed with
the case and after being advised by the well wisher of the petitioner and the
at village level , the petitioner wants to withdraw the case as per his own
will.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
No.1007 of 2009 .
AND/OR
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger , whereby and where under
without considering the grounds or plea taken by the petitioner filed in the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
Munger stating therein that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized
on 20.05.2009 with the Opposite-party no.2 and thereafter she went to her
matrimonial house and after some time the in-laws of the Opposite-party
no.2 started to demand Rs.1 Lac to construct his house upon which the
Opposite-party no.2 said her parent inability to pay such type of huge
further alleged in the said petition that the petitioner carried to the
-3-
Opposite-party no.2 to his own house after pacifying the matter in between
the parties . Thereafter she became pregnant later on but the in-laws of the
she was being assaulted and lastly on 30.06.2011 she was driven out from
No.694C of 2011 was lodged and she gave birth to another female child
namely Divya at her Maike and there is no any other source of income of
Rs.10,000/- per month because the petitioner runs the flour mill and he
earns Rs.20,000/- per month and accordingly the learned Principal Judge
has passed the impugned order without considering the material aspects of
the petitioner .
A true photo stat copy of the plaint of
person and after the death of his father , the birth of the petitioner became
separate in all respect and the mother of the petitioner is an old lady and
she is spending her life on his pension amount only . The petitioner became
helpless and when the maintenance case was instituted by the Opposite-
-4-
party no.2 ,the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act but the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to reside with the
in his village to get any job for his livelihood . In this way the petitioner is
impugned order that neither the petitioner appeared in the said case nor a
not pleaded the petitioner has own source of income and the Opposite-party
no.2 has denied the allegation made in the petition itself but the learned
Principal Judge has not discussed the contention of the petition filed by the
petitioner in the impugned order itself and simply the learned Principal
Judge has concluded the order and directed the petitioner to pay altogether
much surprising to mention here that the learned Principal Judge has not
-5-
discussed the point taken by the petitioner in his petition simply the order
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal
Judge is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is quite illegal in the
eye of law .
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge has quietly ignored the
ANNEXURE- 2.
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge has only focused that
the Opposite-party no.2 has no source of income and undisputedly the two
children and the Opposite-party no.2 is the liability of the petitioner which
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has fixed the amount of
-6-
V. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
A N D/ OR
A ND
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the petitioner above named for condonation of delay in filing of the instant
though the said criminal revision has been filed on 07.12.2012 and the
Stamp Reporter has pointed out the defect upon limitation on 11.12.2012 .
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
to the concerned Advocate but it could not be filed within the period of
filed on 07.12.2012.
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
-3-
AND/OR
Act, 1984 ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
2. Kiran Devi, wife of Manoj Das , daughter of Sri Fanindra Das @ Fulo
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
Jitendra Kumar, the Principal Judge , Family Court, Munger , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has passed an order to pay
Court since the date of filing of the petition dated 07.12.2010 by the
complaint case against her in-laws including the petitioner for offence
under Section 498A , 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
-3-
Motorcycle along with Rs.2 Lacs were also demanded by them and on
being tortured by her in-laws family .On the other hand the petitioner has
contested and said that the Opposite-party no.2 has never lived with him
despite his request and she has illicit relation with her villager and marriage
between the parties dissolved by the Panchayat in the year 2001 itself.
Though the complaint case was filed in the year 2009 against the petitioner
and his family members . Inspite of this ,the petitioner became ready to
as a routine Clerk due to death of his father .When he was unemployed ,the
Opposite-party no.2 herself left the matrimonial house and she has some
illicit relationship with her villager and a Panchayati was also made and she
flatly denied to live with the petitioner and on that point of time ,the
petitioner was released on anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No.12293 of 2011
passed on 19th April,2011 but this Hon'ble Court at the time of passing the
order ,the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the
complainant –Opposite-party no.2 from May, 2011 but herein this case the
learned Principal Judge , Family Court , Munger passed the order to pay
Rs.1,500/- since the date of filing of the petition dated 07.12.2010 ,it is clear
cut violation of the order passed in Cr. Misc. No.12293 of 2011 on dated
-4-
suddenly desired to live with the petitioner and having seen no scope ,
follow the terms and conditions such as to maintain the dependants of the
deceased employee and the petitioner having got his salary maintained the
dependant of his father such as brother , sisters and the loan taken by the
petitioner in the marriage of his sister is being refunded till now and a huge
amount of portion of the salary is being deducted against the loan taken by
the petitioner . In this way the petitioner is quite unable to pay the
the petitioner can be ousted from the service. Note even only the petitioner
-5-
ultimately ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 and a legal and genuine
mother as well as the family members . In this way , that claim of the
as well as the petition filed by the Opposite-party no.2 did not spend 1/4 th
amount of Rs.10,000/-.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order
following
GROUNDS:
-6-
Judge is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is quite illegal in the
eye of law .
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge has erred in passing the
impugned order that maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- ass per the direction
by this Hon'ble Court has to be paid since May,2011 but after being
misconceived the learned Principal Judge has passed the order and directed
Rs.1,500/- as per direction of this Hon'ble Court since the date of filing of
the petition dated 07.12.2010 which is quite illegal in the eye of law as well
as the clear cut violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court and it causes
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge has also failed to
appreciate the financial condition of the petitioner and the petitioner was
V. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-7-
Munger.
A N D/ OR
IN
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Buxar.
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
-2-
…….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
Hon'ble High Court to set aside the order passed by the A.D.J. , F.T. Court-
V , Buxar dated 02.07.2010 in Sessions Trial No.219 of 1998 and direct the
learned court below to issue process under Section 82, 83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for procuring the attendance of the informant and the
no.3 namely Rabindra Tiwary son of Pradash Tiwary as dead and after the
-3-
5. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
District – Sitamarhi.
…… ………….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
No. C-I/421 of 2011 by Sri Awadhesh Kumar, the learned Sub- Divisional
to dismiss the complaint filed by the petitioner and also to direct the learned
court below to proceed with the complaint against the Opposite-party no.2.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble Court
filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Ration Scheme . The Opposite-party no.2 told her to give Rs.1,000/- per
-3-
month and he has also demanded Rs.5,000/- at once then the petitioner
opposed about it then the Opposite-party no.2 became angry and started to
abuse her .
Opposite-party no.2 then the Opposite-party no.2 assaulted her and abused
in filthy language . The Opposite-party no.2 also torn her clothes and
Police- Station but the police refused to lodge the case then she filed the
385,379,323, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was
complaint petition.
prosecution witnesses namely Pranit Kumar , Kamini Devi, Pinki Devi and
Nagina Das were examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and they have fully supported the prosecution version as spelt out
application.
Rs.500/- per month as also at once for payment of Rs.5,000/- as bribe in the
Opposite-party no.2 and she flatly refused to make payment of the said
bribe upon which the Opposite-party no.2 misbehaved with the petitioner
and in defense the Opposite-party no.2 lodged a false case against the
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.128 of 2011 against the husband of the petitioner
when the Opposite-party no.2 had apprehension that the petitioner might
have lodged case or made complaint before the higher Authorities against
no.2 ,who during the course of discharge of his public duty misused his
the petitioner merely on the ground that the Opposite-party no.2 had lodged
a case against the husband of the petitioner as also the Opposite-party no.2
serious charge for demanding bribe and on non-fulfillment of the said bribe
he misbehaved with the petitioner taking the advantage of his post and the
12. That, it is stated that if the Opposite-party no.2 is left free from
the said charges ,which is miscarriage of justice with the petitioner and
-6-
abuse of the process of the court of law since in future the Opposite-party
13. That, in view of the aforesaid facts the impugned order passed
be set aside .
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned Sub-
of the said demand ,he misbehaved with the petitioner taking the advantage
of his post .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Sub-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Sub-
no.2 lodged the case against the husband of the petitioner in self defense
party no.2 misused his power during the course of discharge of his duty for
misbehaved with the petitioner ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 could not
VI. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate
is fit to be set aside since it suffers from non-application of judicial mind and
it is passed taking the lenient view that the Opposite-party no.2 is holding
VII. For that , the order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal ,
VIII. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
A N D/ OR
To,
been rejected.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble Court
or before the learned Sessions Judge , Munger earlier against the impugned
order .
for offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 323, 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after charge trial
-3-
4. That , during the course of trial of the instant criminal case the
and 7 , several developments took place which were either not within the
be enumerated as follows :-
I. That, the said Matrimonial Case No.56 of 2001 was decreed in
-4-
IV. That, the Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court finding the
VI. That, in the year 2004 a son was born out of the wedlock with
transpires that the son died within a very short time. Thereafter
Vibha Bharti . Besides her father Nawal Prasad Singh had also
-5-
Bhagalpur on 19.07.2010.
VIII. That, the Opposite-party no.2 Vibha Bharti along with her
father Nawal Prasad Singh has appeared and have filed a joint
pay cost for trial of the suit and maintenance for herself and
this case the petitioners along with other accused person put in a petition
-6-
7. That, after hearing both the sides the learned Sub- Divisional
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate did
not apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and it is fit
to be set aside .
should have considered the number of developments took place after the
evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 7 examined in this case and should have
-7-
should have considered that the recall and further cross-examination of the
petition and should not have rejected the petition by his instant cryptic
order .
mentioned P.Ws. would have not only exposed that the P.Ws. have
concealed the material ad important aspect of the case but would have
VII. For that, for a just decision in this case it is necessary that
VIII. For that, the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that no
subsequent event can be considered ignoring the fact that Hon'ble High
Court has given liberty to the parties to take proper step before the learned
court below.
VIII. For that , the order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal ,
IX. For that , the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and is fit
to be set aside.
-8-
AND
During the course of the pendency of this revision
stayed.
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
-2-
Pandey ,the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 ,
Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008 /14 of 2010 whereby and where
under the appeal filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and the sentence
awarded by the learned trial court for charge under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code is set aside and sentence awarded under Sections 323
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed , arising out of judgment
and order dated 05.07.2008 passed by Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava learned
Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one month
for each Section and the petitioner was further convicted under Section
325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of six
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
-3-
along with other accused persons Ram Dayal Mahto , Ramesh Mahto and
Shiv Dayal Mahto were filling earth to construct road on the land of the
from filling earth , accused Ramesh Mahto caught hold his hand and
thereon . He further alleged on his alarm , his wife ( P.W.3 ) came there
then accused Ram Dayal Mahto and Shiv Dayal Mahto started beating to
her and all the accused persons uprooted Khunta meant for tying bullock
and petitioner also snatched away golden nose ring from nose of his wife .
registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325,379/34 of the
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under Sections 341,
-4-
and 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 28.10.2004 .
against the petitioner and others under the aforementioned Sections and
aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and four
others .At the time of framing of the charges , the petitioner and others
case such as :-
-5-
such as :-
13. That , it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses are the
interested witnesses and co-related with the each other and all of them had
15. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence said that Mukhiya
of the Gram Panchayat had granted permission to him for constructing the
road ,therefore, he was filling earth there but informant prevented him for
16. That, it is stated that wife of the informant P.W.3 is not the eye
witness of the so-called occurrence since P.W.2 in his evidence said that
-6-
the P.W.3 came at the place of occurrence after five minutes of the
occurrence .
that there were land dispute and a proceeding under 107 of the Code of
evidence said that the informant did not produce any paper of the land in
question when he inspected the place of occurrence and he also said that he
did not see earth which is said to have been kept on the place of occurrence.
19. That, it is stated that P.W.1 in his evidence said that the
on the left palm of the informant was found which falsifies the prosecution
version .
and others under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one month for each
Section and the petitioner was further convicted under Section 325 of
-7-
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of six months
and all the sentences shall run concurrently without considering the
22. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
which was registered as Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2008/14 of 2010 and during
petitioner and others was finally heard by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge , Fast Track Court No. 3 Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to partly allow
the appeal filed by the petitioner and the sentence awarded by the learned
trial court for charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is not
sustainable and same is set aside and sentence awarded under Sections 323
and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable under law and the same is
affirmed .
24. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-8-
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
-9-
failed to examine the independent witnesses and all the witnesses are
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any chit of paper regarding the land in question before the
Officer did not found earth at the place of occurrence which is said to have
evident said that he saw the wife of the informant after five minutes of the
occurrence .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the informant P.W.4
in his evidence admitted that there is land dispute and a proceeding under
VIII. For that ,while continuing the conviction order of the learned
trial court ,the learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.2 in
his evidence said that the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat had granted
-10-
permission for construction of the Road ,therefore, he was filling earth but
IX. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
No.304 of 2008 .
-11-
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
Singh , the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge , Fast Track
Court No. 3 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 21 of 2011 which was heard
along with Cr. Appeal No.05 of 2011 , whereby and where under the
the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirm the judgment and
2010 , arising out of G.R. No.1576 of 2008 , by which the learned Sub-
convict the petitioner and three others under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for a period of two
year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they
pleased to convicted the petitioner and three others under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year and
also a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the same and in default of payment of
-3-
fine they shall have to undergo further imprisonment of six months. All
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
No.1000 of 2008 and after institution of the complaint case ,the learned
the Dumra Police- Station for institution of the First Information Report and
a formal First Information Report and registered a case being Dumra P.S.
Case No.190 of 2008 dated 09.08.2008 registered for the offences under
Sections 341,323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of
petition /First Information Report ,in short, is that the marriage of the
filing of the complaint petition. The complainant further alleged that when
she went to her Sasural and started to live in matrimonial house . She
-4-
further alleged that at the time of marriage her parents had given
Rs.30,000/- and other house hold articles to the in-law’s family and the
that after some time ,the accused persons started demanding dowry of
said demand of dowry , the in-law’s family always subjected her to cruelty
and she was subjected to mental and physical torture . It is further alleged
provide food to her and always assaulting her . The complainant further
alleged that her brother had given Rs.10,000/- to them but inspite of that
the accused persons on 05.07.2008 , assaulted her with Khanti and after
pouring Kerosene Oil , they wanted to kill her but any how she was saved .
children ,accused persons dragged her from the house then she came back
father and brother went to her Sasural and a Panchayati was held but no
result .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and four others under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act .
-5-
and four others under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
against the petitioner and four others under the aforementioned Sections
and aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner and
four others .At the time of framing of the charges , the petitioner and four
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether five
Exhibit -2.
-6-
such as :-
Ext. A/1 :Letter of Dr. Ahmad which was written to the Hon'ble Health
University Lucknow .
Ext. A/7 :Advised slip of Sun Sanjivani Hospital Maternity and Eye –
of Tabassum.
13. That , it is stated that all the prosecution witnesses are the
interested witnesses and co-related with the each other and all of them had
habitual to lodge the false cases against the in-law’s family with the false
-7-
and concocted allegation only with a view to create havoc on the in-law’s
family.
15. That, it is stated that the informant , her brother and father had
come to the house of the petitioner and assaulted the family member of the
against the informant and her brother and father and the said complaint was
sent to the Dumra Police- Station for institution of the First Information
Report being Dumra P.S. Case No.189 of 2008 in which the informant and
her brother and father was ultimately found guilty under Section 323 of the
16. That, it is stated that not even only this , the informant also
lodged the maintenance case against the petitioner for her maintenance and
her children before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in
which the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/-
17. That, the fact is that the informant herself is not willing to live
with the petitioner since very early and with the false and concocted
allegation she lodged the cases against the petitioner one by one to extort
money from the in –law’s family in connivance with his brother and father.
-8-
Tabassum Khatoon was that the said Tabassum Khatoon wanted to set fire
upon the informant but during the course of investigation as well as during
the course of trial ,the prosecution has failed to establish its case against
shows that after falling from the roof of the house in the year 2005 the
accused Tabassum had become vision less and she had received various
treatment but she failed to recover the vision of her eye sight ,therefore, the
said accused Tabassum Khatoon was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
failed to establish her case against the accused persons merely on the
unreasonable doubts.
20. That, it is stated that the informant wanted to file bond of Rs.3
Lacs and started to bargain the petitioner ,it shows that the informant
herself did not ready to live with the petitioner and creating undue pressure
-9-
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo
S.I. for a period of two year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of
has further been pleased to convicted the petitioner and three others under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I.
for one year and also a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the same and in default
24. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
registered as Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2011 and other convicted accused persons
-10-
No.05 of 2011 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was not
released on bail .
25. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal filed by the
Fast Track Court No. 3 Sitamarhi along with criminal appeal filed by
other three other accused persons ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal
appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. Cr. Appeal No.21 of 2011 and affirm the
to establish its case beyond all unreasonable doubts whereas the criminal
appeal filed by other three accused persons i.e. Cr. Appeal No.05 of 2011
26. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
27. That, it is stated that the petitioner has not been enlarged on
bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal and he is behind the bars
months.
-11-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
-12-
failed to examine the independent witnesses and all the witnesses are
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to establish its case against the accused one Tabassum Khatoon
against whom there is serious allegation that she wanted to set fire upon the
informant since during the course of trial it proves that she had become
habitual to lodge the cases against the in-law’s family one by one to create
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the informant , her
brother and father attacked on the petitioner and his family members for
which a case was filed on behalf of the petitioner in which the brother and
father of the informant was found to be guilty under Section 323 of the
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case
-13-
VIII. For that ,while continuing the conviction order of the learned
trial court ,the learned appellate court failed to appreciate that the
persons ,therefore, the learned appellate court acquitted all the accused
persons except the petitioner and confirmed the conviction order with
respect to the petitioner merely on the ground that the petitioner happens
IX. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
-14-
No.1576 of 2008 .
AND/OR
A ND
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Jananti Khatoon , wife of Md. Shamsujoha ,
3. Seema Khatoon , minor daughter of Md. Shamsujoha
4. Masooma Khaton , minor daughter of Md. Shamsujoha,
5. Md. Aadil ,minor son of Md. Shamsujoha,
6. Md. Aakib ,minor son of Md. Shamsujoha,
Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6 are under the guardian of Jananti
Khatoon .
All are resident of village – Bariyarpur , P.S.
Sitamarhi ,District – Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
and order dated 26.08.2011 passed by Sri Ajit Kant Sharan , the learned
2008 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the
month regularly without fail from the date of passing of this order .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the Opposite-party no.2 filed the maintenance case in the court of
-3-
therein that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per
no.2 started living with the petitioner and from their wedlock two sons
and two daughters were born out . It is further alleged that after marriage
the petitioner started ill treating the Opposite-party no.2 and demanded
no.2 and her parents and when it was refused by them ,then the petitioner
started abusing the Opposite-party no.2 and stopped her food and treatment.
assaulted the Opposite-party no.2 and ousted her and her three minor
children from his house and the Opposite-party no.2 with her three minor
means to support her and her minor children and she is guardian of
poor person and are unable to maintain the Opposite-party no.2 and her
minor children and it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and
earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tailoring and he has also 6 Bighas of
land and the annual income from the landed property is more than Rs.1 Lac
-4-
and the petitioner has income of Rs.2,20,000/- annually from all the sources
and the petitioner is legally bound to maintain the Opposite-party no.2 and
No.50 of 2008.
application.
appeared before the learned Principal Judge and filed his written statement
on 24.09.2008 stating therein that all the allegations made in the complaint
the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not ready to live with the petitioner and
-5-
application.
only 19 ½ decimals are standing in which the petitioner has only 1/6 th share
which comes about only 3 decimals. In fact the petitioner is landless person
Tailor in his native village and from the same income ,the petitioner was
dowry nor ousted from his house rather the Opposite-party no.2 herself left
the house of the petitioner and deserted the life of the petitioner .
cases against the petitioner and his family members one after another i.e.
Dumra P.S. Case No.190 of 2008 and Dumra P.S. Case No.28 of 2010
registered for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code
-6-
learned trial court in Dumra P.S. Case No.190 of 2008 lodged by the
11. That, it is stated that the petitioner had also filed the case
against the Opposite-party no.2 and his brother and father being Dumra P.S.
Case No.189 of 2008 in which they were found guilty under Section 323 of
the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2011.
against the petitioner by the Opposite-party no.2 one after another , the life
13. That, it is stated that the petitioner is behind the bars since
long and the petitioner has no source of income and also there is no hope
after the release from the jail he would earn to maintain his life .
no.2 herself is not ready to live with the petitioner and she deserted the
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to the petitioner
-7-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the fact that the
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner though
the petitioner is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 and her children with
full dignity and surety ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.2 is not entitled to
get any maintenance or interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even after the best efforts of the
petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to live with the petitioner .
-8-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
deserted the life of the petitioner though the petitioner is ready to keep the
surety ,therefore, she would not be entitled to any maintenance under the
Judge failed to appreciate that due to lodgment of the criminal cases by the
Opposite-party no.2 against the petitioner one after another ,the life of the
petitioner completely ruined and in one of the case ,the petitioner was
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance ,the learned Principal
Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner is landless person and he was
doing the work of tailoring in the village and from the said income any how
VII. For that, while passing the impugned order the learned
evidence about the landed property of the petitioner as well as income of the
petitioner .
VIII. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
-9-
AND/OR
AND
( PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
-2-
under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirm the judgment
and order on the point of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned
2009 , arising out of G.R. No.30 of 1998 ,Pupri P.S. Case No.07 of 1998
Sitamarhi has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 25(1-
b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a
period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for Section 25(1-B)a and
Section -26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine he shall have
payment of fine.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
-3-
Report ,in short, is that the informant namely I.D. Chaudhary ,who is the
therein that on 13.01.1998 at about 5 P.M. in the morning along with Sub-
investigation of Pupri P.S. Case No.06 of 1998 registered for the offences
under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for recovery of
alleged that in the meantime they heard some noise and saw that a person
was trying to flee away seeing the police party , but on chase ,he was
witnesses, county made pistol loaded with 0.315 bore rifle cartridge were
recovered and one more cartridge was found in the pocket of shirt . It is
further alleged that thereafter the seizure list was prepared in presence of
both witnesses namely Ramprit Mukhiya and Jai Karan Paswan and both
paper nor replied satisfactory and accordingly the accused along with arm
-4-
registered a case being Pupri P.S. Case No.07 of 1998 registered for the
against the petitioner under Sections 25(1-B) a/26 of the Arms Act and
aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the petitioner .At the
time of framing of the charges , the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried .
-5-
case such as
11. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his evidence said that during the
course of chase of the accused , Ram Prit Mukhiya had allegedly arrived
there and at the place of occurrence itself the seizure list was prepared but
the P.W.3 in his evidence did not say about the presence of another seizure
list witness namely Jai Karan Paswan whose signature was also allegedly
obtained upon the Seizure list which also creates a serious doubt about the
prosecution version.
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to support its case rather
13. That, it is stated that seizure list witnesses namely Ram Prit
Mukhiya and Jai Karan Paswan have not been examined by the prosecution
-6-
that the arm was covered with rust whereas P.W.2 ( Sergeant Major ) in his
evidence said that during the course of testing of the recovered arms he
found that the firing pin and trigger spring of the arm effect .
15. That, it is stated that there is serious contradiction in between
the version of the First Information Report and evidence of the prosecution
17. That, it is stated that the prosecution has also did not establish
the case that from the possession of the so-called arms were recovered .
and order dated 30.06.2009 ,without taking into consideration the material
petitioner under Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced
him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each
for Section 25(1-B)a and Section -26 of the Arms Act and in default of
-7-
20. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirm the judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 passed
person ,therefore, after filing of the criminal appeal in the year 2009 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning his livelihood and the
appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
-8-
the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal
of appeal and when the petitioner had come to his native village , then
custody .
application.
22. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-9-
other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to examine the seizure list witnesses namely Ram Prit Mukhiya and
Jai Karan Paswan in whose presence so-called recovery was made from the
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
Sergeant Major ,according to the P.W.1 the arms was covered with rust
whereas according to the P.W.2 the firing pin and trigger spring of the arm
was effective .
-10-
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are police personnel and interested witness and their
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to establish that from the possession of the petitioner so-called arms
was recovered .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-
1998.
AND/OR
A ND
-12-
1998.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
( PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
-2-
the judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 passed by Shri Nand Kishore
Tiwari , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. 1 ,
under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and others and affirm
Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 278 of 2002 /53
of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1292 of 2001 / Parihar P.S. Case
Section 307 read with Section 149 ,351 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and two years under Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and fine of Rs.2000/- each and default of payment of fine convicts
will have to undergo further imprisonment for six months each however all
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
-3-
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
his Fardbeyan stating therein that his father and witness Arun Kumar were
going to attend natural call to western direction of the village and when they
reached near Pipal Tree standing at Chowk , accused person along with
other accused persons who has already let ambush suddenly fell upon them
. The accused Shyam Chandra Rai and Hari Narain Rai armed with Nepali
Kukri in their hand , accused Navin Rai held Riffle in hand and rest
accused persons were armed with Garasa and Lathi and accused Shyam
Chandra Rai exhorted other accused persons to kill all the three where upon
informant and his father came running to house of Chandeshwar Rai having
played there from and Arun Rai filed to village raising alarm . It is further
alleged that all the accused persons came running brandishing were
Rai ,Harischandra Rai , Rakesh Rai , Ramchandra Rai caught hold the
hand and leg of his father and accused Hari Narain Rai and Shyam Chandra
Rai started cutting with dagger . It is further alleged that accused Shyam
Chandra Rai chopped off right hand of his father from elbow and accused
Hari Narain Rai made several murderous assault to his father with intend to
keep . As a result of which his left hand was cut out and two fingers of left
hand of his father were cut off and besides this accused persons caused
wound of both leg and hand of his father fell down being unconscious and
-4-
accused Raj Kishore Rai snatched away Titan watch of his father and
handed over the same to accused Harishchandra Rai and accused Anil Rai
took away Rs.3,000/- from the pocket of his father. It is further alleged that
accused Raj Kishore Rai and Rakesh Rai said to cut in two pieces ,the
informant and his father both. Thereafter all the accused persons fell upon
the informant and accused Navin Rai fired with Riffle upon informant
which hit on above elbow of right hand and caused damages thereon and in
mean while ,other accused persons assaulted him and his father with Lathi
and accused Raj Kishore Rai and Ram Chandra Rai inflicted Garasa on his
mother came to rescue then accused persons also badly assaulted her and
thereafter many villagers rushed there shouting and accused persons fled
away and accused Anil Rai went away dismembered of his father and
Maheshwar Rai and other persons saw the occurrence and villagers carry to
the informant and his father and caught to Parwaha Chowk and informant
and his father both were brought to Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital where they
treated . The cause behind the occurrence was that the accused Shyam
Chandra Rai , Hari Narain Rai asked the informant to compromise the case
pending between them , otherwise they would kill the informant’s father
did not concede the demand of the accused persons as a result of which
-5-
case being Parihar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2001 registered for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149,342, 341, 323, 324, 307 , 379 of the Indian
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and others under the above
mentioned Sections .
under Sections 147,148,149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 326,307, 379 of the Indian
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred in the
against the accused persons and others under Sections 307,149 of the
Indian Penal Code and all the accused persons were further charged for
the offence under Sections 147, 148,341 , 342 of the Indian Penal Code
and accused Raj Kishore Rai and Shyam Chandra Rai , Anil Rai and others
-6-
have further charged under Section 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
and aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused .At the
time of framing of the charges , the petitioners and others pleaded not guilty
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether eight
the First Information Report as well as his evidence , made during the
-7-
course of trial was very petty offences if resulted into alleged heinous
offence.
14. That, while convicting the accused persons ,the learned trial
witnesses .
16. That, as per the statement of the informant and the statement of
committing such offence ,which creates serious doubt about the truthness of
petitioners and others under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and further convicted under Section
-8-
149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and
others Sections 147 and 341 was not awarded separate sentence and also
awarded to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and all the sentences will run
concurrently.
and order on the point of sentence dated 13.06.2008 passed by the learned
2nd Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,the petitioners and others preferred
2010 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioners were released on
bail .
20. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioners and others and affirm the judgment dated 12.06.2008 and
20.11.2010.
-9-
person ,therefore, after filing of the criminal appeal in the year 2008 ,the
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and
the appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal
of the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners had come their native
village , then they have got knowledge about the dismissal of appeal then
23. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-10-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court .
III. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
-11-
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
the victim for using weapon by the accused persons in committing such
offence.
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
-12-
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
2001.
AND/OR
-13-
A ND
Act, 1984;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ashok Kumar, son of Late R. K. Singh ,
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
Resident of Kali Prasad Tola, P.O. and P.S. Purnea ,District – Purnea.
……….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
1. That, this application is being filed for setting aside the order
month to his wife Babita Kumari from the date of the order which shall be
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court earlier
(II) For that, it is further stated that the grand maternal uncle of the
(III) For that ,at the time of marriage ,petitioner’s age was 40 years
-3-
(IV) For that ,further it is alleged that petitioner and his other
(V) For that ,as per stated in the maintenance petition that father of
(VI) For that , it is further stated that petitioner and other members
(VII) For that, it is further stated that petitioner had gone to Patna
(IX) For that ,it is also stated that petitioner earns a sum of
-4-
16.03.2009.
examined in the said maintenance case ,two of them are the close relatives
interested witnesses .
application.
6. That, Hemant Kumar ,who is the main architect of this case and
-5-
petitioner and his family members that they made pressure upon Opposite-
ultimately they ousted her on 17th December, 2008 from their house due to
which it is stated clearly that the conjugal life was never being solemnized
December, 2008 itself. Petitioner paid this amount Rs.50,000/- by cash and
Rs.50,000/-by cheque.
application.
Hemant Kumar made this plan very strategically and petitioner has been
-6-
and after realizing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac ) from petitioner they
have lodged a false complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No.578 of 2009 on
petition i.e. Complaint Case No.578 of 2009 has been filed by the Opposite-
party no.2 on 6th March, 2009 . Again Hemant Kumar is the conducting
13. That, it has become crystal clear from the above mentioned
14. That, a divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. T
(M) .S. Case No.264 of 2010 under Section 3(1) (i-a)(i-b) of Hindi
which Babita Kumar ( Opposite-party no.2 ) has not been appearing for
which summon has already been issued. Ultimately a Notice was issued to
-7-
this application.
Principal Judge , Family Court , Purnea had fixed the award of Rs.2,500/-
and synthesized in its totality ,it will found that the whole allegation leveled
against the innocent petitioner is nothing but a bundle of lies . Truth is that
-8-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned court below has not analyzed and
synthesized the case in its totality and due to which learned court could
the innocency of the petitioner whereas such emphasis was given on the
V. For that, the petitioner has been made an scape goat in this
case which is crystal clear at a glance that learned court below could not
VII. For that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
-9-
A ND
(PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sitamarhi.
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the judgment and order dated 12th January ,2011 passed by Shri Arvind
Kumar Pandey , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No. 6 , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 11 of 2009/01 of 2010 , whereby and
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to
dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the
Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 283/2000 , Trial No.70 of 2009 by which the
undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 325
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
Mahendra Jha , Nazim and Md. Anwar came there and on the order of
Mahendra Jha accused Md. Nazim gave Lathi blow on her hand resulting
-3-
fracture on her hand and accused Mahendra Jha gave 2-3 sticks blow to her .
It is further alleged that in the mean time the accused Arman and Nanhe
also came there and they also started to abuse the informant . She further
alleged that the accused Nanhe took away cash Rs.250/- from Anchal of her
Saree . On alarm witnesses came there and they took the informant to
Bajpatti Hospital where she was treated . The cause behind the occurrence
for the offences under Sections 341,323,325, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian
Penal Code .
submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and four others under the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under the above
charges were framed against the petitioner and others under Sections
341,323, 325 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nanhe was
-4-
charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated
14.03.2002 and at the time of framing of the charge , the petitioner and
as :-
Ext. 2 :Fardbeyan
11. That, it is stated that P.W.1 ,who is the step son of the
but in fact he is not the eye witness of the occurrence since the informant
-5-
in her Fardbeyan said that after her alarm the witnesses came and taken to
her in hospital .
12. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence did not say any
persons.
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are the son of the
informant and they also are not the eye witness of the occurrence rather they
are the hear say witness. In their evidence they admitted that at the time of
occurrence they were working in the filed and on call they arrived at the
place of occurrence.
the case in his evidence said that no theft article was recovered during the
course of investigation and nothing was asked during the cross- examination
15. That, it is stated that P.W.6 ,who treated the informant and in
his evidence said that injuries received by the informant are also possible
claimed that the informant ,who is an old lady, was assaulted by five
persons .
-6-
undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 325
of the Indian Penal vide judgment and order on the point of sentence dated
30.01.2009.
Sitamarhi ,the petitioner and others preferred a criminal appeal which was
19. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal application filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.2009 passed
-7-
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2009 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State i.e. Punjab for earning his
livelihood and the appeal was taken up after such a long time and
ultimately the appeal was dismissed on 12.01.2011 but the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did not inform
the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and when the petitioner had
come his native village , then he got knowledge about the dismissal of
application.
21. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-8-
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.5 who is the
Investigating Officer of the case in his cross –examination did not say
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
examined the informant in his evidence said that injuries are also possible
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
-9-
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to appreciate that there is admitted land dispute in between both the
parties .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution
witnesses are not the eye witness rather they are hear-say witness and they
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to appreciate that P.W.2 in his evidence did not say about the specific
IX. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
-10-
AND/OR
A ND
-11-
( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY)
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Ravi @ Ravi Ranjan Rai, son of Horil Rai
,District –Muzaffarpur.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
-2-
Appeal No.34 of 2011 ,whereby and where under the learned Sessions
Judge , Muzaffarpur was pleased to reject the petitioner’s application for bail
in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No.33 of 2011 registered for the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
written report before the Station Head Officer of Mithanpura Police- Station
allured her daughter Ujala Masih aged about-15 years and committed rape
friend of her daughter but he has committed this offence after alluring her
for marriage.
-3-
Report and registered a case being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.33 of 2011
Penal Code .
case by the informant with some ulterior motive to grab money from the
family of the petitioner . The fact is that the petitioner is aged about only 13
years whereas the victim is aged about 18-19 years as determined by the
Medical Board.
-4-
application.
8. That, the petitioner was detained by the victim and the friends
of the victim girl ,who have trapped this petitioner in the present case and
he was handed over to the police on the date of institution of the First
9. That, when the petitioner was produced before the court since
vide order dated 30.04.2011 ,he was declared as juvenile by the learned
10. That, even though the petitioner was declared juvenile when
his bail application was filed before the learned Juvenile Justice Board
-5-
ground that since the petitioner has committed a serious offence ,therefore,
11. That, against the order dated 13.05.2011 passed by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur , the petitioner filed appeal in the court
Appeal No.34 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 25.08.2011 ,the learned
Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur was pleased to reject the petitioner’s prayer for
bail on the ground that the release of the appellant on bail would defeat the
ends of justice.
12. That, the mother of the petitioner undertakes to take care about
-6-
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that prayer for bail of a juvenile can be
rejected only on the ground mentioned in the Juvenile Justice Act and for no
other reason.
III. For that, the reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for
rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail is alien to the provisions of Juvenile
IV. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal filed for grant of
bail to the petitioner ,the learned Sessions Judge ,Muzaffarpur also failed to
appreciate the facts of the case that according to birth certificate of the
petitioner he is aged about -13 years and thus the allegation that he had
committed rape with victim whose age has been medically assessed to be
-7-
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
Saran at Chapra.
…………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
the judgment and order dated 16.06.2011 passed by learned Dr. Ramesh
Sessions Trial No.54 of 2009 arising out of Derni P.S. Case No.42 of 2008
registered for the offences under Sections 341,323, 324, 504 ,34 and 307 of
the Indian Penal Code whereby and where under the learned trial court
set free the Opposite-party nos. 5 to 7 on the basis of Section 3 and 4 of the
-3-
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2011.
3. That, the fact of the case is referred here under that the
informant Md. Rashid ( petitioner ) submitted his written report before the
Station Head Officer of Derni Police – Station stating interalia that two
mango trees situated near the house of the informant whose stem came out
from the earth and on 18.06.2008 at about 9 A.M. ,the accused persons
namely Md. Sadik , Akbar Ali were cutting the stem of the mango trees on
which he forbade to cut the said stem then Akbar Ali , Sadik ,Idris have been
abused and said that the trees does not belong to you and all the three
Farsa and Rod and the informant sustained injury and other accused came
there and started to abuse and assaulted with Danda and villagers came
there and rescue and accordingly the First Information Report was lodged.
341,323,324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code was added vide order dated 16.07.2008. After being
made thorough investigation ,the police has submitted an application before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Saran at Chapra to add the Section -
307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was ordered on 16.07.2008 and
-4-
according Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added and police has
submitted charge-sheet and the case was committed to the court of Sessions
and the charges were framed under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 324/149,
paragraph no.7 of the judgment that Md. Idris Ali , Akbar Ali as well as
Md. Sadik came there prior to assault made by the accused, Sadik and Akbar
Ali were cutting the root of mango tree and after being forbidden to cut
the same Idris having armed with Farsa and Akbar and Sadik armed with
rod came there and started to assault the petitioner (informant ) and
region which is the vital part of the body assaulted by Idris with Farsa
blow repeatedly and thereafter Akbar Ali also assaulted with rod on the
hand of the petitioner . Consequently the bone was fractured and as per the
injury report as well as the testimony of the doctor goes to support the
prosecution case but the learned trial court did not take into
same was discussed by the learned trial court in paragraph no.9 of the
judgment .
6. That, there is no repeated blow of the assault made by the
Section -307 of the Indian Penal Code reveals that when there is assault
upon the vital part of the body with an intention to kill him or injury may be
-5-
the cause of death of the injured person then it should be treated as under
the purview of 307 of the Indian Penal Code . Apart from this it is a case of
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code at least or the accused persons can be
punished under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied
Sections of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial court did not take
and passed the judgment has simple as possible and the accused persons
7. That, on the first hand ,the learned trial court has categorically
P.W.4 , P.W.5 but here in this case, it has not been denied that the
occurrence did not take place and the informant and the other injured
persons were not assaulted by the accused persons and all the accused
persons were facing trial and the learned trial court should have
persons Opposite-parties .
offence and it is clarified during the course of trial but the learned trial court
-6-
take shadow under the umbrella of the statement given in the First
Information Report .
9. That, the learned trial court should have also considered the
size of injury caused by sharp cutting weapons and also the vital part of the
body and so far the statement of the informant has also corroborated
consistently with the evidence and the injury report as well as testimony of
the doctor.
such type of offence and after making unlawful assembly and they have full
were also assaulted . In this way ,it is quite absurd to say that there is no any
contrary they all have assaulted to all of them of the prosecution party by
means of Farsa , Rod and Danda . It is also specific case of the prosecution
that three lady accused also assaulted the informant by Danda and Sota ,it
Indian Penal Code is said to have not proved by the learned trial court but
having seen the material documents such as injury report and testimony of
the doctor and other witnesses , there is assault on vital part of body by
-7-
Farsa and Rod and in this way there is no question to say that the
prosecution has not able to prove the charges of the offence under Section
307/149 of the Indian Penal Code . It is the learned trial court ,who have
seen the material on record and categorical statement in the judgment and
merely on the basis of contradiction ,the ample punishment has not been
given by the learned trial court which is quite illegal in the eye of law .
The learned trial court should have scrutinized the evidence in toto and
Khatoon but the testimony was discarded by the learned trial court merely
of witnesses have been discussed but on the basis of the statement of D.Ws.
that there is land dispute between the parties and they are agnates and the
land upon which mango trees is situated has not been separated and a
Panchayati was held on 18.06.2008 and there was no assault on that day
but the learned trial court has not been discussed any where that the said
witnesses made in the judgment that lastly the learned trial court has said
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 307 of the
-8-
Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and the charge under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Godaila , Najma and
Nazrul Nisa and prosecution has proved the charge under Sections 323,
341, 404 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons
/Opposite-parties and the charge of offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code against Idris , Sadik and Akbar Ali but no ample punishment
was awarded to Opposite-parties rather the learned trial court acquitted all
the accused persons for the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and the lady accused persons were also acquitted for the offence under
the learned trial court that the bone of hand of the informant was fractured
and the learned trial court did not impose the punishment under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code . Apart from this there is assault and injury on
the vital part of the petitioner as well as the other prosecution parties but
the learned trial court wrongly held and passed the judgment of acquittal
for offence under Section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code . So far
the discussions made by the learned trial court for giving the benefit of
of the said Act in this way the entire judgment and order dated 16.06.2011
is quite illegal in the eye of law as well as on facts and the same is fit to be
set aside.
-9-
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that , the learned trial court did not meticulously examine
the testimony of the witnesses as well as the injury report and the
testimony of doctor and he did not take into consideration about the
III. For that, the learned trial court has also failed to consider the
and planned motive and intention of the Opposite-parties but the learned
trial court acquitted the Opposite-parties for the charge under Section 307
IV. For that, the learned trial court should have considered the
-10-
V. For that, the learned trial court wrongly took shelter under
some extent .
VI. For that ,the learned trial court should have taken into
consideration the totality and entirety of the case where there is no denial of
commission of the offence but the learned trial court acquitted and light
testimony of witnesses.
VI. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
Code .
AND/OR
-11-
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
point of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned trial court ,the
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1 Sitamarhi and during the pendency
petitioner proceeded outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members since the petitioner is very poor and illiterate person
after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel appearing on his behalf
and the petitioner had under the impression that the learned counsel
appearing on his behalf before the learned appellate court informed him
impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 , the petitioner was not
-3-
Fast Track Court No. 1, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
surrender before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any
native village then the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal
poor and rustic persons ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the
2011 for filing the present criminal revision application and accordingly
the instant criminal revision application is being filed before this Hon'ble
Court.
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-4-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to dispose of the
maintenance case on the basis of the affidavit sworn by the Opposite-party
nos. 2 and 3 and held that only the Opposite-party no.3 is to pay Rs.2,000/-
per month to the petitioner though in the Opposite-party no.2 in his affidavit
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the petitioner filed the maintenance case in the court of learned
Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that the petitioner has two sons
-3-
entire earnings of his life. The petitioner further said that he is aged
about 71 years and he is unable to do any physical work since last 10 years
and the age of his wife is also about -67 years and she is suffering from
Cancer since last 8-9 years . The petitioner further said that his first son is
Railway and their earnings are handsome . He further said that the
Opposite-party no.2 did not take care him as well as his wife and when the
said that when he asked money from the Opposite-party no.2 for treatment
of his wife then the Opposite-party no.3 asked that when the Opposite-
party no.2 will provide money then he only provide money . He further said
that in their maintenance the amount of Rs.6,000/- per months will be
required.
application.
-4-
wherein he admitted that the Opposite-party no.2 is not paying any single
farthing for the maintenance of his parents and he also assured that he is
petitioner and also said that it is the pious duty of the Opposite-party no.3
-5-
application.
by the learned Principal Judge vide order dated 26.05.2011 but in the
impugned order the learned Principal Judge held that only the Opposite-
party no.3 is to pay Rs.2,000/- per month though in the affidavit of the
learned Principal Judge has not held that the Opposite-party no.2 is also to
11. That, it is stated that since the Opposite-party no.2 is not paying
Rs.2,000/- per month ,therefore, the Opposite-party no.3 is also not paying
-6-
12. That, it is stated that in fact the learned Principal Judge did not
pass any judicial order in the maintenance case filed by the petitioner rather
the learned Principal Judge is also failed to assert the undertaking of the
13. That, in fact the order of the learned Principal Judge has no
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
affidavit agreed for payment of Rs.2,000/- per month but he did not direct
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
-7-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
affidavit .
Court, Muzaffarpur .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
Sitamarhi.
…………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and order dated 21st May , 2011 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
Sessions Trial No.283 of 2008/ 153 of 2008 arising out of Bajpatti P.S.
the Opposite-party no.2 and 3 from the aforesaid charges leveled against
them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the case .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2011.
23.02.2008 , in brief is that his son namely Ranjit Kumar Mukhiya usually
watched sugar cane field and he went to watch sugar cane field situated
-3-
near Marha Bridge at 5 P.M. on 16.02.2008 but he did not return at night
on that day then petitioner and his family members started searching for
him from their relative and villagers but no trace of deceased was found. It
is further said that the petitioner gave information to the Police- Station
about missing of his son on 19.02.2008 and station diary entry was made. It
is further said that a grass cutters of the village saw the dead body lying in
river Marha at 2 P.M. on 23.02.2008 and commotion was raised that dead
body was lying swollen near in Marha river towards western Chaur of
Bhikha then petitioner rushed there with his family members and saw dead
body was lying on water near embankment and dead body did not flow
with water as the same was obstructed by embankment and the petitioner
identified dead body as his son from cloth namely red shirt and Paint worn
by him and a sheet was wrapped around the neck of deceased and deceased
was done to death by pressing his neck and causing injury on his body. The
petitioner further said that the accused persons along with other accused
and Basudeo Mukhiya having conspired together about the cause of death
of his son and accused persons took away his son from Sugar cane filed
where he often went to watch there and caused his death by pressing his
neck with sheet and having caused injury on his body and they concealed
-4-
Marha and dead body surfaced having swollen and informant was witness
accused persons caused death of his son having strangulation and having
caused injury on body of his son due to cases being fought with them.
case being Bajpatti P.S. Case No.08 of 2008 registered for the offences
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation the
Penal Code and the investigation was pending against rest accused
persons .
-5-
302,201,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material
was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
-6-
Ext.4 : Fardbeyan .
11. That ,it is stated that on behalf of defense also two witnesses
Exhibit-A.
13. That ,it is stated that P.W.1 in his evidence specifically said that
the accused persons were coming from the villager after covering their face
with Gamachha and he also said that some quarrel had taken place in
between the informant and the accused persons prior to 10 days of the
occurrence and accused persons threatened the informant for kill him.
14. That, it is stated that P.W.2 in his evidence also said that the
accused persons and deceased were talking near Marha river and he also
15. That, it is stated that P.W. 3 in his evidence also said that he
saw the accused persons and the deceased talking a Marha River where
-7-
16. That, it is stated that P.W.4 in his evidence said that the accused
persons abused when P.W.6 has come to the court for giving deposition .
17. That, it is stated that P.W.5 in his evidence fully supported the
prosecution version and also stated that he lodged Sanha about the missing
of his sons . He also said that P.W.1 informed him that his son was seeing
version and in his evidence said that the accused persons and others
police .
19. That, P.W.7 in his evidence said that the cause of death of the
case .
21. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
specifically said that the deceased was last seen by them with the accused
persons at the place of occurrence and also said that there was admitted
-8-
22. That, it is stated that the learned trial court acquitted the
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order dated
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W. 1 ,2 and 3 have
categorically said in their evidence that the deceased was last seen with the
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.1 in his evidence
categorically stated that prior to 10 days some occurrence had taken place in
-9-
between the informant and the accused persons and the accused persons had
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that, the P.W. 7 , who conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased, in his evidence specifically said that the cause
sharp weapon.
learned trial court failed to appreciate that P.W.5 has fully supported the
prosecution version and said in his evidence that the P.W.1 and 3 informed
him that his son was seeing with the accused persons.
VI. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
VII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
VIII. For that, the learned trial court acquitted the Opposite-party
nos.2 and 3 merely on the ground of the prosecution has failed to produce
-10-
IX. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that against the Opposite-party nos.2
and 3 had complete intention and circumstance for killing of the deceased
and they were seen by the witnesses along with the deceased at the place of
occurrence.
law .
pleased to set
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .
Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
District – Munger.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and where under the learned Principal Judge passed an order to pay the
2. That, the petitioner has never moved before this Hon'ble Court
rejoinder filed by the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned order
against the petitioner has been categorically denied by the petitioner and on
the other hand the petitioner and his parents were being tortured by the
Opposite-party no.2 by different mode of activities . The case which was
-3-
directed to lead their happy conjugal life but the Opposite-party was
4. That, lastly she lodged a false case in which the petitioner was
remanded into judicial custody and after being released on bail he is facing
fully dependant on his father and his income is so meager that he is quite
undisputedly the petitioner does not have any Computer Coaching Centre
and he does not have any knowledge about computer degree . He is simply
passed the Intermediate Examination .He only taught some tiny boys later
following
-4-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
undisputedly that the petitioner does not have any computer and its
knowledge and he has no such income of Rs.2,000/- from the said business.
III. For that ,the learned Principal Judge did not scrutinize the
passed the impugned order which is quite illegal in the eye of law as well as
on facts.
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to consider the
record.
V. For that, the impugned order is bad in law and on facts and the
-5-
AND/OR
AND
stayed.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
Md. Nazim……….…………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
directed against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011.
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Sitamarhi and during
thereafter the petitioner proceeded outside the State i.e. Punjab for his
poor and illiterate person after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel
appearing on his behalf and the petitioner had under impression that the
learned counsel appearing on his behalf informed about the outcome of the
appeal.
impugned judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011 , the petitioner was
not present in his native village as well as the learned counsel appearing on
Fast Track Court No. 6, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
-3-
surrender before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any
native village then the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal
of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated
old person ,therefore, in arranging the money to file the present criminal
revision application before this Hon'ble Court ,the family members had
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-4-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
the judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Shri Subodh Kumar
Srivastava , the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.
VII , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 13 of 2008 , whereby and where under
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioner with the modification that the order of
conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/-
under Section 279 is set aside and affirmed the judgment and order dated
has been pleased to convict the petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of
one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian
Penal Code . In default of payment of fine , the convict shall go under the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
-3-
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
Bhitha More on 28.02.2003 in the evening and got information that while
his father Bal Krishna Jha was returning from Nationalized Primary
The informant further alleged that the driver of the tractor was
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which his father sustained
severe injury . He was taken to the clinic of Dr. S.K. Jha in serious
The informant further alleged that driver fled away from the
registered for the offences under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code .
Sections .
-4-
charges were framed against the petitioner after framing the charges , the
case was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of learned Sub-
tried .
P.W. 5 the time of occurrence was 6.15 P.M. , according to the P.W.2 the
-5-
occurrence was 6/7 P.M. in the evening , according to the P.W.4 the time of
did not establish that at the time of dashing the deceased by the vehicle
they were present at the place of occurrence rather from their evidence it
has established that after the accident they have come at the place of
14. That, it is admitted fact that after the accident the driver of the
vehicle in question had fled away and the driver of the vehicle was not
occurrence rather all the witnesses are hearsay witness of the occurrence but
16. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to examine the
person of the vicinity of the place of occurrence and the prosecution has also
failed to examine the doctor , owner of the vehicle and Investigating Officer
of the case.
17. That, it is stated that merely on the basis of suspicion ,the name
of the petitioner has come in the present case that the petitioner was driving
-6-
undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304(A)
of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code . In default of payment of fine ,
the sentence awarded vide judgment and order on the point of sentence
dated 26.02.2008.
20. That, it is stated that against the order dated 26.02.2008 passed
Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner
-7-
21. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. VII
Sitamarhi ,who was pleased to dismiss the criminal application filed by the
petitioner with the modification that the order of conviction under Section
279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 is set
aside and affirmed the judgment and order dated 26.02.2008 passed by
2008.
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2008 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning his livelihood and the
appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and
when the petitioner had come his native village , then he got knowledge
-8-
application.
23. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
-9-
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
the occurrence .
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution
-10-
witnesses are not the eye witness rather they are hear-say witness and they
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to examine the owner of the vehicle ,who is one of the witness to say
that at the time of occurrence who was driving the vehicle in question .
IX. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
-11-
AND/OR
A ND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
2. Ram Lakhan Singh @ Lakhan Singh ,son of Late Ram Awatar Singh ,
Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
the judgment dated 20 th day of April, 2011 and order dated 21 st day of
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.3 Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.58 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms Act , whereby and
discharge the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and also the Opposite-party no. 3 to 6 under Section 504 and 342 of
the Indian Penal Code on nonest ground though against the Opposite-party
aforesaid Sections.
-3-
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2011.
accused Sahdeo Singh came and asked him why he was piling on his
land ,whereupon injured Ram Adesh Singh ( P.W.6) told him that he was
staking on his own land upon which accused Sahdeo Singh shouted calling
other accused to come with Lathi , Spear and Pistol and put to death
him .It is further said that upon which accused Ram Lakhan Singh having
armed with Khanti in his hand accused Sri Bhagwan Singh having armed
with country made pistol in his hand ,accused Shashi Ranjan Singh having
armed with Lathi in his hand , accused Alok Singh having armed with piece
of bamboo in his hand rushed there and started assault to Ram Adesh
Singh. It is further said that accused Ram Lakhan Singh gave Khanti blow
on the head of Ram Adesh Singh as a result of which Ram Adesh Singh
accused Bhagwan Singh opened fire at Chandradeo Singh but the same was
Chandradeo Singh
-4-
with land and when wife of Ram Adesh Singh namely Veena Devi (P.W.4)
and mother of the informant ( P.W.3) came to rescue then the accused
persons also assaulted them . It is further said that when the informant
began intervening, accused Sahdeo Singh and other accused dragged him
to their house , having put Gamachha around on his neck and started beating
him and accused Shashi Ranjan Singh snatched golden chain weighing 7
gram and accused Bhagwan Singh took out Rs.10,000/- from the pocket of
the informant and thereafter the villagers assembled there and intervened
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation ,the
–diary ,who fully supported the prosecution version but the police
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material available
in the case-diary .
was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
-5-
framed against the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian
are the eye witness of the occurrence and all of them are specifically said
that the accused Ram Lakhan Singh gave Khanti blow on the head of
Ramadesh Singh ( P.W.6.) which is grievous in nature and vital part of the
body and all of them are also fully supported the prosecution version
10. That, it is stated that the medical evidence has also supported
the prosecution version and P.W.7 ,P.W.9 and P.W.10 in their evidence also
11. That, it is stated that the P.W.10 his evidence proved that the
13. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
discharged the Opposite-party nos.3 to 6 under Section 504 and 342 of the
Indian Penal Code and also discharged the Opposite-party no.2 under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convict the Opposite-party no.2
-7-
under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code since it was culpable homicide
though in the present case there is sufficient ingredients are available for
conviction of the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code .
has been pleased to convict the Opposite-party no.2 under Section 308 of
the Indian Penal Code and convict the Opposite-party nos. 3 to 6 under
for offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code rather there is
sufficient ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code is available but the learned trial court convicted the Opposite-party
GROUNDS:
-8-
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order dated
II. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
504,342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned trial court failed to
appreciate that there is ample material against them to convict under such
Sections.
III. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
504,342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned trial court failed to
no.2 that he gave Khanti blow on the head of the P.W.6 ,which is
grievance in nature .
IV. For that , while setting free the Opposite-parties under Section
504,342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned trial court failed to
504,342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned trial court failed to
appreciate that firstly the P.W.6 was treated in Sadar Hospital ,Sitamarhi
and taking the seriousness of the offence P.W.6 was referred to Patna
Medical College and Hospital and the said contention was also supported
VI. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party no. 2 under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code from the charges leveled against him.
VI. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that there is
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no application under
VII. For that, the learned trial court only minimized the sentence
convict the Opposite-party no.2,the learned trial court convict the Opposite-
party no.2 under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code though in the
Indian Penal Code rather the sufficient ingredients of offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code is available against the Opposite-party no.2.
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
aside the part of the judgment dated 20 th day of
-10-
AND/OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Hajipur.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 20.06.2011 passed by Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha ,the learned
Appeal No.09 of 2011 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner for
his release and also confirmed the order dated 11.03.2011 passed by Sri
attributing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by which
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
Report in brief is that the informant Geeta Devi gave her Fardbeyan before
-3-
Devi had gone at the Bathan of Jamun Rai ,she saw that the petitioner
was committing rape with the daughter of the informant namely Ujala
Kumari .
The informant further alleged that upon which her Gotani
raised alarm and called her Upon which the informant along with her
Gotani went inside the Bathan and saw the petitioner ,committing rape
assembled there and caught hold the petitioner and also informed the
police .
The informant further alleged that the blood was oozing from
and registered a case being Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated
Code .
as ANNEXURE-“1” to this
application.
-4-
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
alleged that firstly her Gotani saw that the petitioner was committing rape
with the victim in Bathan and thereafter she called the informant from the
house then both went in Bathan and saw that the petitioner was committing
rape with the victim which is not believable by any prudent person .
condition ,she should have firstly objected them to do so then she called the
informant but she did not do so, which falsifies the prosecution version
itself.
Report ,the police proceeded with the investigation and during the course of
version rather they denied about the occurrence and also raised suspicion
-5-
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation ,it has
the Court Juvenile Justice Board , Vaishali at Hajipur ,wherein the learned
application for bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
Cr. Appeal No.09 of 2011 ,which was rejected by the learned Additional
20.06.2011.
-6-
14. That, the petitioner is a man of means having movable and
15. That, the petitioner has got a bright career and further
petitioner.
bail.
before the court as and when required if he is granted bail by this Hon'ble
Court.
-7-
petitioner begs to prefer this revision application
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that, while rejecting the Criminal appeal the learned
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing has been brought
the eye of law ,unless there is a positive material on record that the
in between the family of the informant and the petitioner ,therefore, the
instant false case was lodged by the informant against the petitioner .
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that it has come during the
-8-
course of investigation that the petitioner is a social boy and due to some
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Information Report firstly the Gotani of the informant saw the petitioner in
comprising condition with the victim but she did not object to do so rather
she came to her house called the informant then both entered in the Bathan
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
-9-
of Lalganj P.S. Case No.236 of 2010 dated
AND/OR
………………………..…PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
To,
Opposite-party no.2;
before this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order of cognizance dated . .
-2-
of well wishers , relatives and friends of both the parties ,the petitioners
and Opposite-party no.2 have compromised their cases and settled their
Magistrate 1st Class , Patna , Mat. Case No.512 of 2006 pending in the
respective parties.
4. That, both the parties have decided to leave tier personal lives
with their own way .The petitioner namely Braj Bhushan Mishra
(husband ) and Opposite-party no.2 namely Prem Lata Devi @ Pinki have
Hence either the party has got no claim or complaint against each other.
5. That, since both the parties have compromised their cases and
settled their disputes outside the premises of the court . Therefore, both the
-3-
this petition.
wishers ,friends and relatives of both the parties ,the order taking
cognizance dated
O R/ A N D
And for this ,the petitioners and Opposite-party no.2 shall ever pray.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA .
Act, 1984;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
……….…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
1. That, this petition has been filed for setting aside the order
Devi from the date of filing of this petition and pay the amount of
party no.2 before the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Jamui stating
therein that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and marriage was
petitioner along with his family members started torturing her for non-
fulfillment of their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lac ) and kept her
confined in a room for two days without meal after brutally assaulting her.
-3-
came ate her matrimonial home and paid Rs.20,000/- to the father of the
and his relatives snatched her all ornaments and belongings and ultimately
they ousted from her matrimonial home. She came to her paternal home and
filed a dowry torture case as well as a petition under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and his family members
on 19.06.2009 .
7. That, as per statement of the Opposite-party no.2 ,petitioner is
Bighas of fertile land from which he (petitioner ) has annual income of Rs.
One Lac. It is also alleged by the Opposite-party no.2 that petitioner has
party no.2.
statement of petitioner in its totality the learned court below instead of the
-4-
2008 with the Opposite-party no.2 ,the conjugal life of the petitioner and
Opposite-party no.2 has been on peacefully for two months after the
marriage.
Kumar Singh, who is the cousin brother of the petitioner used to come in
the house of the petitioner time to time. His continuous visit in the house
of the petitioner twined into the illicit relationship with the wife of the
petitioner .
11. That, it is also important to mention here that the wife of the
12. That, all the request went in vain and ultimately ,petitioner
was compelled to file a divorce case against the Opposite-party no.2 . The
2009.
Maintenance Case No.50/2009 on 19th June, 2009 after four days of the
-5-
that the maintenance case is only the reactionary action of the Opposite-
bearing No.50(M) of 2009 in connivance with her father and other family
members . The case has been filed by the wife of the petitioner in the court
that it is only counter blast of the matrimonial case filed against the
Bokaro and his father possess only one Bigha of un-irrigated land where his
father and brother resides. He earns only Rs.2,500/- per month approx as
contract labourer .
private tuition and runs stitching centre and is able to maintain herself.
18. That, the fixation of award has been made on the basis of two
Lac ) from the land of ten bighas both are absolutely false . Therefore, the
-6-
always ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour.
Devi ,her father and family members are habituated in filing the false
Sections 341,323,379,504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the
Arms Act and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by Pallavi Devi
Singh , uncle Vijay Singh and uncle Sohan Singh and Nanad Sushma
Kumari . The police made a proper investigation of this stereo typed
and false. The Deputy Superintendent of Police ,Jamui had submitted his
that all the allegations leveled against Tarun Kumar and his family
members are false and fabricated. This reveals the mental word of
not in a position to pay the award of Rs.2,500 per month to the Opposite-
party no.2.
-7-
following
GROUNDS:
synthesized the case in its totality and due to which learned court could
III. For that ,the learned court below has not properly appreciated
V. For that, the petitioner is ready to keep his wife full dignity and
honour.
-8-
below.
VII. For that, when it has become clear that the petitioner has been
his wife and his wife is indulged with illicit relationship with the cousin
No.50(M)/2009.
AND/OR
-9-
A ND
kindly be stayed.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
IN
In the matter of :-
Shankar Sahani……………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,Sitamarhi and during
the pendency of appeal ,the petitioner was enlarged on bail , and
thereafter the petitioner proceeded outside the State for his livelihood as
well as his family members since the petitioner is a very poor and
illiterate person after entrusting the pairvi to the learned counsel appearing
on his behalf and the petitioner had under impression that the learned
counsel appearing on his behalf informed about the outcome of the appeal.
impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2008, the petitioner was not
Fast Track Court No. VI, Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned
-3-
before the learned trial court as well as he did not prefer any revision
native village then the police arrested the petitioner on 13.09.2010 ,then
the petitioner could get knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal filed
by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 06.03.1997 with
some modification and since then the petitioner is behind the bars .
March, 2011 for filing the present criminal revision application and
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-4-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
(PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 19.05.2008 passed by Shri Narsingh Prasad , the learned
Appeal no. 19 of 1997 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.03.2007 passed
in G.R. Case No. 1082/86 , Trial No.303/97 with some modification that
the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years
under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section
25(a) of the Arms Act , by which the learned Judicial Magistrate has
been pleased to convict the petitioner Under Section 25(A) ,26/35 of the
Arms Act and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year and further
sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years under Section
26/35 of the Arms Act however all the sentences will run concurrently.
-3-
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
same day he along with other police officials and Chaukidar recovered
arms , cartridges and some stolen articles in connection with Case No.52
of 1986 from the house and Bathan of one Acchelal Sahni of village-
Bakhari Malahi Tola ,who in his confessional statement said that Rajendra
Sahni and Shankar Sahni had kept concealed illegal arms in the house of
Shivjee Prasad .It is further alleged that on such information ,the
informant along with the police force cam to village- Panchtaki Yadav
Adya Rai searched the house in which Rajendra Sahni was living and
during the course of search ,illegal arms and cartridges were recovered
from beneath the bed of Rajendra Sahni .It is further alleged that Rajendra
Sahni could not produce any paper regarding the recovered arms ,while
they were asking from Rajendra Sahani , Shankar Sahani began to flee
Prasad and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of
-4-
further alleged that all the articles were seized and accordingly seizure
instituted registered for the offences under Sections 25(A) /26/35 of the
Arms Act.
aforementioned Sections .
7. That, it is stated that after submission of charge-sheet ,the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and others under
charges were framed against the petitioner and others and after framing
the charges , the case was transferred for trial and disposal to the court of
of the charge , the petitioner and others pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried .
-5-
such as Ext. 1 signature on the First Information Report , Ext. 2 & 2/1
Report.
13. That ,it is stated that informant of the this case was examined
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 in his deposition admitted that
the petitioner was not living in the house of Shivaji Sahani and no arms
-6-
15. That ,it is stated that D.W.7 was examined on behalf of the
defense and the said witness in his evidence said that the petitioner was
16. That, it is admitted fact that neither from the possession of the
petitioner any arms was recovered nor the petitioner was arrested on the
place of occurrence .
17. That ,it is stated that the prosecution has failed to produce the
independent witnesses as well as the seizure list witnesses rather all the
trustworthy .
18. That, it is stated that in the evidences of witnesses serious
25(A) ,26/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced the petitioner to undergo
R.I. for three years under Section 25 of the Arms Act and also to pay a
year and further sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years
under Section 26/35 of the Arms Act however all the sentences will run
-7-
20. That, it is stated that against the order dated 06.03.1997 passed
1997 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was released on
bail .
21. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section
26/35 of the Arms Act and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the
the Arms Act since there is no recovery of any arms from the possession of
the petitioner .
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 1997 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning his livelihood and the
-8-
appeal was taken up after such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did
not inform the petitioner about the dismissal of appeal and when the
petitioner had come his native village , then the police arrested the
jail custody .
application.
23. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-9-
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was
neither arrested on the spot nor from his possession any arms was
recovered .
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that without any arms
there is no use of cartridge rather the police had allegedly shown the so-
called recovery two cartridges from the possession of the petitioner on the
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
-10-
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness even the seizure list witness to
establish his case rather all the witnesses are interested witness and their
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.1 in his
evidence deposed that the petitioner was not living in Shivaji Sahani and
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case lodged
by the informant is false and concocted ,therefore, no any independent
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-
1986.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
A ND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and order dated 22.02.2011 passed by Sri Dr. Kumar Deo Dutta , the
No.152 of 2007 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has
been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month
the maintenance case . The petitioner has been further directed to make
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the Opposite-party no.2 filed the maintenance case in the court of
therein that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per
Hindu Rites and custom in the month of July, 1999. It is further alleged
that after the marriage the Opposite-party no. 2 went to her matrimonial
-3-
house with the petitioner and after some time the petitioner and his other
party no.2 to demand Rs.2 Lacs cash and one Hero Honda Motorcycle
from her father. It is further alleged that the Opposite-party no.2 declined
to demand such amount and article from her father on the pressure of the
the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2,a female child was born which
further alleged that the Opposite-party no.2 is living in her Parental house
along with her daughter but the parents of the Opposite-party are unable to
maintain the Opposite-party and her daughter since the parents of the
apart from the petitioner has landed property area 15 Bighas and Pucca
-4-
No.152 of 2007.
A true photo stat copy of the plaint
of Maintenance Case No.152 of
2007 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE- “1” to this
application.
5. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite-party
no.2 herself is not ready to live with the petitioner and she deserted the
the parties a Panchayati was held on 25.02.2007 and in the Panchayati the
decision was taken in the Panchayati that the petitioner pay a sum of
Permanent Lok Adalat issued notice to the Opposite-party no.2 but she did
not enter her appearance before the Lok Adalat ,therefore, the learned
Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 09.09.2008 advised the petitioner
-5-
to file the case before the Principal Judge, Family Court since the matter
Lok Adalat ,Sitamarhi for restitution of the conjugal life , the Opposite-
20.09.2007 .
10. That, the fact is that the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not
ready to live with the petitioner even after the best efforts of the petitioner
rather the petitioner ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity
and surety .
12. That, it is stated that the Panch namely Rakesh Kumar filed
herself is not ready to live with the petitioner then it was decided that a
-6-
maintenance and the same was duly accepted by the father of the
Opposite-party no.2.
application.
13. That, it is stated that the father of the Opposite-party no.2 was
examined as A.W. 6 and in his deposition the said fact was also admitted
was handed over to him for the maintenance of the Opposite-party no.2 .
application.
D.A.V. School and earning Rs.6,000/- per month but it is palpably false to
say that the petitioner hand the landed property of 15 Bighas but the fact is
belonging .
-7-
Pakur ,therefore, from his earning most of the money is spent for
maintaining himself and since the Pakur is situated far flung from the
native village of the petitioner ,therefore, there is no income from the
prove this allegation ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not produce any evidence.
case, the learned Principal Judge vide interim order dated 05.05.2008
petitioner but under compulsion the said amount is regularly paying to the
Opposite-party no.2.
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 , whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
-8-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the fact that the
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner since the
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even after the best efforts of the
petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to live with the petitioner .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
deserted the life of the petitioner though the petitioner is ready to keep the
-9-
Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and surety ,therefore, she would
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in any event an order for payment of
interim maintenance cannot be passed with retrospective effect i.e. from the
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance ,the learned Principal
VII. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
the Opposite-party no.2 is refused to live with the petitioner then it was
Opposite-party no.2 in lieu of her maintenance and the said amount was
accepted by the father of the Opposite-party no.2 and the said fact was
VIII. For that, while passing the impugned order the Hon'ble Single
establish the ground for maintenance and he did not produce any evidence
-10-
IX. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
AND/OR
AND
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
-2-
and order dated 26.02.2011 passed by Sri Bal Krishna Verma , the
Judge has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.06.2009 passed
Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner
spelt out in the First Information Report in brief is that the petitioner was
-3-
since 1978 and the petitioner was deputed for watching the said Truck .
said Truck was missing from the Garage in between the period
informant went for enquiry where he saw that the Garage was not present
on the spot and a new building is stating at the spot where the Garage
was standing . It is further alleged that the informant asked show –cause
from the petitioner but he did not submit any show-cause within time . The
P.S. Case No.09 of 1989 against the petitioner and the owner of the
-4-
were framed against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code whereas against the accused Md. Salauddin Mistry under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code and at the time of framing of the charge , the
case , P.W.2 Sri C.K. Verma , P.W.3 Sri Nagendra Dutt Pandey , P.W.4
Sri Alok Kumar, P.W.5 Sri Shiv Parsan Prasad, P.W.6 Sri J.C. Bhandari
informant , Ext. 5 is letter no.265 dated 01.04.1989 issued from the office
-5-
Information Report ,whereas the P.W.7 has been declared hostile and he has
denied his statement before the police that Government Staff was
11. That, in his evidence the P.W.1 admitted that the petitioner
accepted that from the office of Divisional Office ,it appears that the
admitted in his cross- examination that the Papers of the Truck was not
available in his office and he also admitted that the Truck in question was
kept in the Garage of Md. Salauddin Mistry since 1978 i.e. prior to filing of
evidences of all the prosecution witnesses that the Truck in question was
not in working position and the same was kept in the open sky since last
-6-
15. That, it is also admitted fact for last about 10 years, the
Officers of the Department were not interested to repair for the Truck in
question or auctioned the and when the petitioner himself informed about
the missing of the said Truck ,they woke up from deep slumber and
16. That, it is stated that in the present case ,the prosecution has
failed to examine the independent witnesses rather all the witnesses are
not trustworthy since they deposed their evidence only with a view to
save their skin from their own dereliction in duty because lapses on their
part the truck in question was kept in the Garage since last 10 years in
open sky .
18. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to examine the
the case against the owner of the Garage ,in whose Garage the Truck in
question was kept and from where the Truck in question is missing.
20. That, it is true that the petitioner was deputed to watch the
-7-
watch out the truck in question in open sky same for long 10 years for 24
hours .
pleased to convict the petitioner Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years vide
No.31 of 1999 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioner was
released on bail .
23. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
Muzaffarpur ,who also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 26.02.2011 and affirmed the order passed by
-8-
24. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
-9-
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that due to latches on the
part of the Officers of the Department ,the Truck in question was kept in the
Garage in the open sky since last 10 years for repairing of the Truck .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
-10-
,the instant case was lodged against the petitioner and the owner of the
Garage .
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to establish the case against the owner of the Garage regarding
IX. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that for a single man ,it
is not possible to watch the truck in question for last 10 years for 24
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the department had
kept silent over the matter for 10 years the department had taken what
XI. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
XII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-
party ,call for the records of the learned court below and
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
A ND
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
Shankar Sahani……………......……………..……PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
person and he is living outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 19.05.2008, the petitioner was not present in his native village
and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the
Sitamarhi did not inform about the impugned order dated 19.05.2008 .
when the petitioners have got knowledge about the impugned order dated
-3-
revision application before this Hon'ble Court ,the family members had
14.03.2011 .
and the delay has been caused in filing of the instant revision application
above .
condoned ,the petitioners would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
-4-
application .
AND/OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sitamarhi.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
-2-
and order dated 19th December , 2009 passed by Sri Sudhakar Singh ,the
Appeal No.90 of 2009 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner for
his release and also confirmed the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the
of Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 for the offence
Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act by which the appellant was refused to be enlarge on bail by the learned
Court against the order dated 19.12.2009 vide Cr. Rev. No.1975 of 2009
thereafter the petitioner again filed Cr. Rev. N.352 of 2011 which was also
rejected on 24.03.2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mandhata Singh and
except that the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High Court
-3-
Report in brief is that the informant gave his written report before the Station
22.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. he was sitting with his family member and
his sons namely Ashok Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh brought soil
on his Tractor to put up on the muddy road but in the mean time the accused
persons named in the First Information Report came there and protested and
claiming the said Road to be their own and son of the informant also
informant’s neighbour namely Braj Kishore Singh and his village namely
Upendra Singh came there . It is further alleged that when son of the
informant started putting soil on the Road at that time accused Manju Devi
brought D.B.B.L gun from her house and handed over to her husband and
order to kill him then accused Umesh Kumar Singh fired from his gun
which hit on the head of Ajay Kumar Singh as a result of which Ajay
-4-
Kumar Singh fell down on the earth and died . It is further alleged that
thereafter accused Sunil Kumar @ Pappu took the gun from the hand of his
father and loaded cartridge and fired the fun which hit on the chest of
Ashok Kumar Singh ,who is also died on spot. It is further alleged that
hearing the sound of firing villagers assembled there and caught Umesh
Sonebarsa P.S. Case No.43 of 2009 dated 22.05.2009 registered for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi being Trial No.85 of 2009 arising out of
-5-
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
apparent that there is admitted land dispute between both the parties for
society and due to this reason he wanted to grab the land of the petitioner
and on the date of occurrence he forcibly putting soil on the land of the
petitioner and when the father of the petitioner protested the informant and
his son brutally assaulted the father of the petitioner any how the father of
the petitioner escaped from the hands of the informant and the father of the
petitioner entered into his house for saving his life . For such incidence ,the
father of the petitioner also lodged a First Information Report against the
grievous injury and taking into seriousness of the father of the petitioner , he
-6-
application.
9. That, the fact is that the father of the petitioner has a licensee
gun holder and on the date of occurrence ,the informant and his son entered
into the house of the petitioner for snatching the gun of the father of the
petitioner but when the father of the petitioner protested the motive of the
informant and his son and on that time accidentally the bullet was fired
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation ,it has
come that the father of the petitioner fired twice upon the both sons of the
informant which hit upon them and nothing had come in the police
11. That, it is stated that since the petitioner was juvenile at the
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Sitamarhi ,wherein the learned Juvenile
juvenile .
application for bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi which was rejected by the learned
-7-
application.
Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal
15. That, the petitioner has got a bright career and further
petitioner.
22.05.2009 i.e. more than two years without any fault and the long
incarceration of the petitioner in the judicial custody is not in the interest of
a juvenile .
-8-
bail.
before the court as and when required if he is granted bail by this Hon'ble
Court.
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order is bad in law as
well as on facts.
-9-
II. For that, while rejecting the Criminal appeal the learned
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing has been brought
the eye of law ,unless there is a positive material on record that the
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that it has come during the
course of investigation that the father of the petitioner twice fired upon the
both sons of the informant which hit upon them and only the petitioner is
son of Umesh Kumar Singh ,the petitioner was falsely implicated in the
present case .
VII. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the informant had falsely
-10-
implicated the entire family members of the petitioner for some oblique
purposes .
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
No.1417 of 2009.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
And for this ,the petitioner shall ever pray.
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
,District – Munger.
…….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
dated 28.01.2011 passed in Cr. Rev. No.59 of 2010 by learned Sri Pradip
Kumar Mallick ,the 1st Additional Sessions Judge , Munger arising out of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger ,whereby and where under
the learned Revisional Court was pleased to set aside the order passed
which the Final Form was accepted and proceeding against the petitioners
was dropped.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
concerned case bearing Dharhara P.S. Case No.13 of2009 which was
lodged by him alleging therein that the informant ,who is the next door
22.02.2009 ,the dispute with regard to the construction of the boundary wall
-3-
was going on six months prior to the occurrence and one panchayati has
been held and the matter was pacified .The accused Vijay Yadav started to
build a pucca roof 10 days prior and the iron rod was extended upon the
land of the informant and secondly the accused persons was protesting by
one Ram Sevak Yadav brother of the informant upon which all the
accused persons abused him and accused Vijay Yadav having taken pistol
from the hand of Prashant Yadav and one Shashi Yadav belonging to village
– Lagma came there with his riffle and accused Vijay Yadav shot firing
upon brother of the informant ,which hit near the nose of the deceased and
he died on the spot and according First Information Report was lodged.
the name of these petitioners have been mentioned in the First Information
Report . The petitioner no.1 is an old man aged about -63 years and the
petitioner no.2 is a Government employee as a teacher and she was
posted in the Middle School, Sair Hathia under Jhajha Block within the
-4-
District of Jamui and both the petitioners are quite innocent and they
5. That, the factual aspect of this case, the son of the petitioner
no.1 namely Raja Yadav fell seriously ill and on 21.02.2009 the son of the
petitioner no.1 was carried to P.M.C.H. and they are badly engaged in the
treatment of Raja Yadav son of the petitioner no.1 and ultimately he died
took place and the deceased came with an old country made pistol and he
tried to open fire but the sticker of the pistol could not be pressed and Ram
fire which hit on the lowest part of the Nostril and Chin and he sustained
injury and he ultimately died by his own mistake . When the wife of the
petitioner no.1 came to know about the accusation of her entire family
in this regard with some villagers then the police came with the collusion
of Kamal Kishore Yadav , father of the deceased ,who is the official of the
of the wife of the petitioner no.1 and wife of the petitioner no.1 ultimately
-5-
ultimately the informant wants to outrage the modesty of the petitioner no.2
persons namely Vijay Yadav and Ajay Yadav , sons of the petitioner no.1
petitioners innocent and having mentioned the accused Raja Yadav and
but in the protest petition itself ,there is no any words or allegations have
been leveled against these petitioners . Simply , the informant leveled the
charge of collusive activities against the police and the informant always
-6-
application.
no.59 of 2010 filed by the informant –Opposite-party no.2 did not mention
any specific averment that he has not been heard at the time of passing of the
order dated 04.01.2010 .Not even only in the order-sheet dated 04.01.2010 ,
it has been mentioned that the informant had already appeared by giving his
Hazari but at the revisional stage , it has been argued orally on behalf of the
informant that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not give
application.
whose statement was recorded in the case-diary , in which it has come that
-7-
the petitioner no.1 was sitting in his door and the place of occurrence is
upon the roof of the house and some villagers were gossiping with the
the petitioner no.1 was definitely not present at the place of occurrence
and accordingly the police has submitted final form against the petitioners .
Not even only in the supervision note itself both the petitioners are found
to be innocent because they were not present at the relevant time at the
place of occurrence .
rightly passed the order dated 04.01.2010 because the appearance of the
appeared suo-motto in each and every stage of the proceeding ,by engaging
-8-
without any rhyme or reason and without any cogent grounds but the
learned lower revisional court has set aside the order dated 04.01.2010
in a Sessions Trial Case and pass the order impugned dated 28.01.2011
without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is quite
illegal in the eye of law though in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order , it
has been observed by the learned lower revisional court but he overlooked
04.01.2010.
13. That, in the protest petition ,the name of almost all witnesses
provisions under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,so there
is no need to linger the procedure of the trial hence the learned lower
-9-
following
GROUNDS:
facts.
II. For that, the learned lower Revisional Court has failed to
III. For that, the learned lower Revisional Court has also failed to
scrutinize the Section -319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is for
the informant in Sessions Trial Case to induce the evidence even if any
IV. For that, the learned lower court should have meticulously
material against these petitioners and passed the order impugned without
-10-
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is quite illegal
VI. For that, the order impugned is quite illegal , unwarranted and
parties ,call for the records of the learned court below and
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
(PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
-2-
To,
and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the
in Cr. Appeal no. 23 of 2008 / 14 of 2008 , whereby and where under the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and
G.R. No.477 of 1991 / Belsand P.S. Case No.31 of 1991 with some partial
petitioners Under Sections 147,148, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to undergo R.I. for two years and
also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 148 of the Indian
Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one
-3-
month each, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and also pay a
S.I. for one month under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code . The
petitioner nos. 3,4,5 and 6 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year
each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine
to undergo S.I. for 15 days each under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code ,they were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years
each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I.
for one month each however all the sentences will run concurrently.
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the First
Paswan and Gajendra Paswan were returning after attending the call of
nature and when they reached near Maharani Asthan Paswan raised alarm
they started to assault both of them with their respective weapons .It is
Paswan , the informant Raj Kishore Paswan rushed to rescue them , the
accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him also with
-4-
Lathi and Farsa . It is further alleged that when the informant rushed
towards his house then accused persons including the petitioners also
chased him and entered into his house and assaulted the informant , his
mother , Bhabhi and father brutally . The cause behind the occurrence is
that prior to 15 days there had been some altercation taken place in between
the informant and the accused persons for passage ( Rasta ) for which a
Panchayati was held and due to that annoyance , the occurrence had been
and registered a case being Belsand P.S. Case No. 31 of 1991 attributing
offences under Section 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.
aforementioned Sections .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and others under
Sections 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
-5-
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred the
court of learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi for trial but the
learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge sent the case to the court of learned
Criminal Procedure since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code was not prima-facie made out against the accused persons.
against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of the
Indian Penal Code whereas the charges were framed against the petitioner
no.1 under Sections 148,324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the
and after framing the charges , the case was transferred for trial and
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether Five
11. That, it is stated that one witness P.W.1 namely Sajjan Paswan
-6-
12. That, it is stated that in the present case , the prosecution has
Officer of the case and Doctor who examined the injured ,whose evidence is
along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1 in his evidence said
that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence which falsifies the
14. That, it is stated that during the course of trial , the injury
received by the injured were not exhibited by the prosecution as also the
doctor was not examined by the prosecution version ,therefore, the so-
statement given by them before the Investigating Officer under Section 161
-7-
deposition of each other , convicted the Under Sections 147,148, 323 and
452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to
undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code , further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and under
Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code however all
18. That, it is stated that against the order dated 28.03.2008 passed
-8-
2008 /14 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioners were
released on bail .
19. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
Sitamarhi ,who also disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 and affirmed the order passed by
vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 with some partial modification
after reducing the period of sentence without applying his judicial mind.
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2008 ,the
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
appeal was taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
dismissed on 30.08.2010 but the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners have come their native
village , they have got knowledge of the dismissal of appeal then they
-9-
application.
21. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
-10-
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
Investigating Officer of the case as well as the doctor who examined the
injured .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
evidence said that he along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1
in his evidence said that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence.
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case lodged
-11-
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
1991.
AND/OR
-12-
A ND
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 30.08.2010 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey , the
in Cr. Appeal no. 25 of 2008 / 13 of 2008 , whereby and where under the
criminal appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
G.R. No.477 of 1991 / Belsand P.S. Case No.31 of 1991 with some partial
petitioners Under Sections 147,148, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to undergo R.I. for two years and also to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and
in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month , further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month
under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3
-3-
were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days
each under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine
of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month each
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
Paswan and Gajendra Paswan were returning after attending the call of
nature and when they reached near Maharani Asthan Paswan raised alarm
petitioners having armed with variously deadly weapons came there and
they started to assault both of them with their respective weapons .It is
Paswan , the informant Raj Kishore Paswan rushed to rescue them , the
accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him also with
Lathi and Farsa . It is further alleged that when the informant rushed
towards his house then accused persons including the petitioners also
chased him and entered into his house and assaulted the informant , his
-4-
mother , Bhabhi and father brutally . The cause behind the occurrence is
that prior to 15 days there had been some altercation taken place in between
the informant and the accused persons for passage ( Rasta ) for which a
Panchayati was held and due to that annoyance , the occurrence had been
offences under Section 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.
aforementioned Sections .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and others under
Sections 147,148,149,307 , 323, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
was committed to the court of Sessions and the case was transferred the
court of learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi for trial but the
learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge sent the case to the court of learned
-5-
Criminal Procedure since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code was not prima-facie made out against the accused persons.
against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 147, 323 and 452 of the
Indian Penal Code whereas the charges were framed against the petitioner
no.1 under Sections 148,324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi vide order dated 12.08.1994
and after framing the charges , the case was transferred for trial and
10. That, it is stated that during the course of trial altogether Five
11. That, it is stated that one witness P.W.1 namely Sajjan Paswan
12. That, it is stated that in the present case , the prosecution has
Officer of the case and Doctor who examined the injured ,whose evidence is
-6-
along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1 in his evidence said
that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence which falsifies the
14. That, it is stated that during the course of trial , the injury
received by the injured were not exhibited by the prosecution as also the
doctor was not examined by the prosecution version ,therefore, the so-
statement given by them before the Investigating Officer under Section 161
deposition of each other , convicted the Under Sections 147,148, 323 and
-7-
452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner no.1 to
undergo R.I. for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code , further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and under
Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ,they were further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and also to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code however all
18. That, it is stated that against the order dated 28.03.2008 passed
2008 /13 of 2008 and during the pendency of appeals, the petitioners were
released on bail .
19. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
-8-
Sitamarhi ,who also disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 and affirmed the order passed by
vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 with some partial modification
after reducing the period of sentence without applying his judicial mind.
20. That, it is stated that since the petitioners are poor
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2008 ,the
petitioners had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
appeal was taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
the petitioners in the appeal did not inform the petitioners about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioners have come their native
village , they have got knowledge of the dismissal of appeal then they
application.
21. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-9-
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
-10-
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to examine the most important witnesses such as informant ,
Investigating Officer of the case as well as the doctor who examined the
injured .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
evidence said that he along with P.W.1 went to rescue them but the P.W.1
in his evidence said that he has got no knowledge about the occurrence.
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case lodged
-11-
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
1991.
AND/OR
-12-
A ND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and order dated 06.12.2010 passed by Sri Dharam Netajee , the learned
whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to
by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the Opposite-party no.2 was married with the petitioner as per Hindu
Rites and custom on 03.06.2009 . Offerings were also given at the time of
further alleged that she went to her Sasural , where she lived in good
condition for 10-15 days and thereafter the petitioner and his other
family members started to demand further Rs.1 Lacs for doing business
for which the Opposite-party no.2 informed her parents and the parents of
-3-
the Opposite-party no.2 any how managed Rs.25,000/- and the same was
given to the petitioner even then the petitioner and his other family
members did not satisfy from the same then she subjected to cruelty and
torture and lastly on 01.09.2009 ,the Opposite-party was ousted from the
house after assaulting her for which a criminal case was also lodged by
the Opposite-party no.2 before the Court. It is further alleged that the
parent of the Opposite-party no.2 also expending money for study of the
and earning Rs.15,000/- per month . She further alleged that the petitioner
is only one son of his parents and about 15 Bighas of land to the father of
Homeopathic Doctor.
2010.
-4-
marriage ,the Opposite-party no.2 had gone to her parental house from the
house of the petitioner but thereafter she did not return even after the best
6. That, it is stated that when the Opposite-party no.2 did not turn
up to return her matrimonial house then the petitioner filed a case in the
8. That, it is stated that not even only the present case, the
and other family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
-5-
case, the Opposite-party no.2 herself admitted on the court question that her
service.
10. That, the fact is that the Opposite-party no.2 herself did not
ready to live with the petitioner even after the best efforts of the petitioner
rather the petitioner ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity
and surety .
of Pre-Law and the petitioner himself is the fully dependent upon his
parents.
application.
-6-
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa through the
this application.
14. That, it is stated that in fact the father of the petitioner had
only three acres of land including unfertile land but the Opposite-party no.2
-7-
16. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 herself deserted the life of
the petitioner and she did not ready to live with the petitioner even after the
06.12.2010 ,whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
party no.2 at the rate of 5000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure . The learned Principal Judge has also been pleased to
following
GROUNDS:
-8-
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the fact that the
Opposite-party no.2 is herself not ready to live with the petitioner since the
Criminal Procedure .
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even after the best efforts of the
petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to live with the petitioner .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
deserted the life of the petitioner though the petitioner is ready to keep the
Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and surety ,therefore, she would
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in any event an order for payment of
interim maintenance cannot be passed with retrospective effect i.e. from the
VI. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
in the complaint case on solemn affirmation upon the court question that the
service .
VII. For that, while fixing the maintenance , the learned Principal
VIII. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal
though the petitioner had already filed a petition through the Advocate
IX. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
AND/OR
AND
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
Chapra.
…………………………... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
-2-
All resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran
at Chapra.
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
the delay in filing the present criminal revision application arising out of
order dated 26th July , 2010 in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010 passed by
Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 registered for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act, whereby and where under the petitioners have not been
-3-
Sciences , New Delhi as such they were at New Delhi for treatment of
meantime the mother of the petitioner no.1 was passed away during her
5. That, when the petitioner no.1 became free from illness then
revision .
deliberate and intentional delay on the part of the petitioners to file this
-4-
10. That, in view of the facts mentioned above , it would be
11. That, the petitioners have not filed any other interlocutory
criminal revision
criminal revision .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Chapra.
…………………………... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
-2-
All resident of village- Akilpur , P.S. Sonepur ,District – Saran
at Chapra.
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
order dated 26th July , 2010 in Sessions Trial No.206 of 2010 passed by
Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 registered for the
offences Under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act ,whereby and where under the petitioners have not been
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon'ble Court
earlier at any stage against the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned
of 2010.
-3-
3. That, the prosecution case ,in short , as disclosed in the
follows :-
Singh fired shot ,hitting his brother and thereafter the brother
the informant to flee away but the informant started crying and
-4-
persons came there running and then the named accused
(iv) It is further stated that the informant carried his brother t the
declared dead.
(v) It is further claimed that the named accused persons killed the
taking carte of the case and for the aforesaid reason , the
registered as Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 under Section 302/34 of the
-5-
A true /photo stat copy of the F.I.R.
implicated in this case due to previous enmity and dirty village politics.
2007 was filed by the informant side ( Sunil Kumar son of Chandradeo Rai ,
over a land . The informant Sunil Kumar is the Bataidar of the informant of
Section -144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated with respect
to same land by the informant and the same was dropped vide order dated
-6-
10. That, it is also relevant to mention here that all the
clearly stated in the order that “ admittedly the land belongs to these
petitioners and there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code
12. That, it has become crystal clear from the above stated
guided Missile in the hands of the informant of Sonepur P.S. Case No.129
of 2008 . It has also become crystal clear that the whole First Information
13. That, the most remarkable matter in this regard is that the
falsity of the case , filed by the informant Sunil Kumar ( Bataidars of the
reveals the intention and the mental world and dase- devilness of creating
-7-
murder , attempt to murder etc. are pending against him and his family
him and is family members e.g. Sonepur P.S. Case No. 146/1992 ,
Sonepur P.S. Case No. 34/2000 ,Dariyapur P.S. Case No.103/2007 and
Dariyapur P.S. Case No.71 of 2008 etc. in view of the aforesaid fact this
possibility cannot be ruled out that persons inimical to him might have
killed the deceased . It is quite pertinent to state here in this context that
the sons of the deceased namely Nawal Singh and Dilip Singh came to
know any how that their father namely Shivji Singh has been killed by one
and ,therefore, just few days after the death of their father they forcibly
took out the said Shankar Singh while traveling in a Tempo and killed
him by sharp edged weapon and threw his dead body in the rider . The
Motorcycle have committed this offence. This is the real fact of the
occurrence which has become clear later on when the two sons of the
-8-
deceased killed one Sikandar Singh by sharp weapons and threw his
dead body in the rider . The said Shankar Singh is not an accused in the
First Information Report ,who is in fact the real and main accused . This
also indicates that the First Information Report is nothing but a bundle of
lies.
revealing the falsity of the case is that one Indal Singh @ Indra Mohan
Singh ,who has also been made an accused in this case whereas in fact he
was not present even in the Vaishali District on that day. He was at
was 8.00A.M. He had participated and qualified . This reality reveals the
17. That, even the full brother of Indal Singh has also been made
an accused in this case which also indicates the falsity of the case . For
sake of justice the old aged mother namely Deopari Devi had given a
Range , Muzaffarpur to save the life of her both sons ,who are absolutely
innocent.
-9-
A true /photo stat copy of the
application .
clearly stated that examine and inquire this matter in Videography and
accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court
except Rakesh Singh ,who has been made he main accused and one or
two persons .
20. That, as per the falsity of the case in the context of petitioner
was busy the entire day with Block Education Extension Officer on
-10-
30.05.2008 .It has been clearly stated by the Block Education Extension
Officer that Surendra Singh was with him for the entire day . Except this
there are more evidences to support this fact that Surendra Singh had
come to the school and left the school. Observing this reality this Hon'ble
Sessions Judge ,Saran at Chapra that petitioner no.1 was busy the entire
day with the Block Education Extension Officer ,who came to investigate
the school .It is also stated that a number of paragraphs of the case-diary
in which the witnesses have stated that petitioner no.1 was on his duty and
Manoj Kumar petitioner no.2 was at his Sasural at village – Dabha within
at Samastipur.
23. That, it has become crystal clear from the above stated
paragraphs that the whole First Information Report is nothing but a bundle
of lies and the petitioners are quite innocent .The have been made an
escape goat in this case only due to the previous enmity and dirty village
-11-
politics.
24. That, in view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned trial court wrongly passed the order
without applying the reasonable mind and without going in its totality.
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious
case.
IV. For that, the learned trial court could not bother to go in depth
V. For that ,learned trial court did not appreciate the fact that
Surendra Singh was busy entire day with Block Education Extension
-12-
also on the case-diary .
VI. For that, the learned trial court did not appreciate the glaring
VII. For that, the learned trial court committed serious illegality in
VIII. For that, it appears that learned trial court has performed its
IX. For that, in any view of the matter, the impugned order of not
pleased to set
AND/OR
AND
kindly be stayed.
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
District – Sitamarhi.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
-2-
District & Sessions Judge –cum- Special Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal
No.61 of 2010/ Sessions Trial No.03 of 2010 whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the appeal
filed by the petitioner and confirm the order dated 03.07.2010 passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi in Gr. No.588 of 2009 ,Trial
No.492 of 2010 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 by which the
learned Juvenile Justice Board has been pleased to declare the son of the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
alleging therein that his son Navin Kumar was residing in the house of his
grand father ( Nana ) since childhood for the purposes of reading . The
-3-
Kumar Mandal called his son by telephone for seeing the movie and on his
call , his son had gone with Sunil Mandal but his son did not return to house
till 20.02.2009 . The informant suspected that his son might be kidnapped
case being Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 registered for
the offences under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and further
application.
5. That, it is stated that the son of the petitioner is innocent and
the son of the informant was implicated in the present case due to enmity.
Report the police arrested the son of the petitioner and remanded to the
judicial custody.
Judicial
-4-
Magistrate , Sitamarhi for separating the trial of the son of the petitioner
and send the case to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Sitamarhi ,since on the date of alleged occurrence , the son of the petitioner
Magistrate , Sitamarhi separated the trial of son of the petitioner and the
case was sent to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board , Sitamarhi for
Dumra in which the son of the petitioner was schooling and Arun Mandal
that the son of the petitioner was born on 13.02.1993 and on the date of
application.
-5-
evidences were produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board such as
Basudeopur etc. etc. in which the age of son of the petitioner namely Sunil
deposed that the age of her son namely Sunil Kumar is aged about 15-16
years and in support of the age of her son she produced the Admit Card
granted by the Bihar School Examination Board in which the date of Birth
12. That ,it is stated that P.W.2 namely Gauri Nandan Singh in his
evidence deposed that Sunil Kumar is the student of School Lok Nayak Jai
Prakash High School , Dumra and he also took admission of Sunil Kumar
-6-
Basudeopur , Boha in which the date of birth of Sunil Kumar has been
mentioned as 13.02.1993.
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 Arun Mandal came in the court
with the Admission Register and in his evidence deposed that the age of
required.
14. That, it is stated that the learned Juvenile Justice Board
disbelieved that the son of the petitioner namely Sunil Kumar was reading
in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High School, Dumra only on the ground that in
the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board shows that
the son of the petitioner filled up his examination form through High
Nayak Jai Prakash High School ,Dumra is a private institution and for the
purposes of filling up the examination form Lok Nayak Jai Prakash High
School is tagged with High School Bela Kutir by the order of Bihar
-7-
this application.
Justice Board a Medical Board was also constituted for assessment of age of
the son of the petitioner and accordingly the son of the petitioner appeared
before the Medical Board and Medical Board assessed the age of the son of
assessing the age of the son of the petitioner and only relied upon the report
of the Medical Board and the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide his
-8-
application.
age to constitute the Medical Board but the learned Juvenile Justice Board
constitute the Medical Board and relied upon it and disbelieved the age
19. That, it is stated that against the order of the learned Juvenile
2010 / Sessions Trial No.03 of 2010 which was finally heard by the learned
upon the law involved in the case , has been pleased to dismiss the appeal
filed by the
-9-
petitioner vide his order dated 03.07.2010 and confirm the order passed by
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the son of the petitioner had appeared in the
Matriculation Examination and in the admit card issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board the age of the son of the petitioner was mentioned as
13.02.1993 ,which is the consistent proof of the age of the son of the
petitioner .
-10-
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the witnesses produced before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board consistently said that the son of the petitioner was
born on 13.02.1993 and on the date of occurrence the son of the petitioner
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Courts
occasion to constitute the Medical Board and rely upon the report of the
Medical Board.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned courts
ought to have considered upon the report of the Medical Board who assessed
the age of son of the petitioner as major and disbelieved the certificates of
-11-
No.65 of 2009.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Pramod Pandit ,son of Chandrika Pandit
…………………………... PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
-2-
Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Her
1. That, this petition has been filed for setting aside the order
/2010 ,allowing a sum of Rs.1800/- per month to his wife Tunni Devi from
the date of filing of this petition and pay the amount of maintenance
2. That, the petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court for
party no.2 before the learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Jamui stating
therein that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and marriage was
-3-
their demand of Rs.20,000/- and ultimately she was driven out in the
petitioner ) ,the Opposite-party no.2 came to their paternal house and filed
a dowry torture case No.529(C) /2008 against the petitioner and his
family members.
petitioner is the Mechanic and earning Rs.6,000/- per month apart from
having one Bigha of fertile land from which he (petitioner ) has annual
2010.
2002 with the Opposite-party no.2 , the conjugal life of the petitioner and
Opposite-party no.2 has been on peacefully and later on two children were
borne.
-4-
10. That, it is remarkable to mention here that one Prakash Pandit ,
house of the petitioner time to time . His continuous visit in the house of
the petitioner turned into the illicit relationship with the wife of the
petitioner .
11. That, it is also important to mention here that the wife of the
petitioner began to say to the petitioner that she would like to go her
Maike . She began to hammer on this request again and again that she
would go her Maike . Ultimately , petitioner had to option except send her
Maike . After some time petitioner went to his Sasural for taking his family
but she refused vehemently to reside with the petitioner but petitioner made
request several times to come back in her house from her Maike.
12. That , all the request went in vain and ultimately Opposite-
party (wife of the petitioner ) stated clearly that she would not go with him
torture case no.529(C) of 2008 against the petitioner and his family
Petitioner again approached to his wife through his well wishers but no
-5-
Pandit . Apart from that one Maintenance Case No.33(M) /2010 has been
filed by the wife of the petitioner in the court of learned Principal Judge,
16. That, the fixation of award has been made on the basis of two
Rs.10,000/- from the land of one Bigha both are absolutely false .
always ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour.
Opposite-party no.2.
-6-
No.33 ( M)/2010 , the above named begs to
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned court below has not analyzed and
synthesized the case in its totality and due to which could come to a
reasonable stage .
III. For that , the learned court below has not properly appreciated
V. For that, petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full dignity
and honour.
-7-
VII. For that, when it has become clear that the petitioner has been
made an escape goat by the brother-in-law of his wife and his wife is
Petitioner is suffering from sentiment crisis because his daughter and son
both have been detached from him and living his wife .
VIII. For that, the brother-in-law of the Opposite-party no.2 i.e. wife
of the petitioner , is the main architect of the whole episode . He is the main
culprit but the learned court below is not saying anything upon him, which
IX. For that, in the facts and circumstances of the case ,the
AND/OR
-8-
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
AND
be stayed.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
…………………………... PETITIONER
VERSUS
at Chapra.
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
-2-
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
the delay in filing the present criminal revising arising out of order dated
Case No.129 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 registered for the offences under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of the Arms
Act, whereby and where under the petitioner has not been discharged from
the charges .
the petitioner has not Opposite-party in the said case and as such he was
through telephone for getting certified copy of the order dated 21.06.2010
-3-
The friend of the petitioner assured that he ( friend of the
paragraph ) will try to get certified copy of the said order within a week .
through telephone about the said order but he replied that he is out of
Station ,therefore, he could not get the certified copy of the said order.
4. That, when the petitioner became free from the illness then
copy of the order on 22.09.2010 and the same has been made available to
8. That, the Stamp Reporter pointed out the limitation has been
case.
10. That, the requisition was filed for getting the certified copy of
the said order was made available on 27.09.2010 . Altogether , 6 days has
-4-
been consumed for getting the certified copy of the order so the revision
is 15 days after deduction of the period given in the Act i.e. 90 days.
deliberate and intentional delay on the part of the petitioner to file this
13. That, the petitioner has not filed any other interlocutory
criminal revision
criminal revision .
AND/OR
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
dated 3rd September , 2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.74 of 2010 by learned
Sri Man Mohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No.2 , Munger ,arising out of order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the learned
2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.128 of 2010 registered for the
order dated 22.06.2010 by which the prayer for release on bail of the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
-3-
Purab Sarai Out Post recorded his self statement on 09/10.04.2010, stating
interalia that when the informant along with police party was on patrol duty
at about 23.45 O’ Clock , all of s sudden the informant heard the sound of
firing and hue and cry and the Station Head Officer of Kotwali was
informed by the informant through wireless and the other patrol party were
and the informant proceeded towards Dilawarpur and he saw that some
persons assembled there and two persons were being assaulted by the mob
and the police party interfered and came to know that the two miscreants
entered into the house of one Kamrul Haque for committing dacoity .
name and after being searched one loaded country made pistol was
recovered from the possession of this petitioner and one live cartridge also
and one country made pistol was recovered from the possession of one
Sonu Mian ,whose name was disclosed by this petitioner and seizure list
was prepared and accordingly the First Information Report was lodged
-4-
falsely implicated in this case due to confusion because the petitioner was
near Dilawarpur and he heard the sound of firing and hulla and due to fear
he started to flee away but on confusion the mob caught him along with
one miscreant Sonu Mian ,who is major and both the pistols were
recovered from his possession but the police has shown the pistols in
possession of the petitioner due to confusion and the seizure list of both
the country made pistol are same . In this way seems to be unbelievable
no any case except the present case is pending has been lodged against the
petitioner .
12.04.2010 without any fault and the father of the petitioner undertakes
that he will not be the associates of any other known criminals and the
father of the petitioner also undertakes that his son shall not accompany
8. That, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the
-5-
without considering the material aspect of the case because nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather mob
and police with a view to show his achievement by catching a minor boy
and the lower appellate court has also misconceived the defense of the
Justice Board as per Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
this application.
25(1-b)A/26/35 of the Arms Act is not made out against the petitioner
because the mob assaulted the petitioner and handed over to the police
but the informant in concocted manners shows the recovery of one loaded
country made pistol along with cartridges in upper pocket of his shirt which
is quite unbelievable .
10. That, it is also very much surprising to mention here that the
description of both country made pistol are quite same and the police
-6-
prepared seizure list of one country made pistol against the name of both
antecedent against one Sonu Mian ,who has been arrested, it might have
been possible that both the country made pistol , were recovered from his
possession and it has been shown that one country made pistol was
petitioner has no concerned with one Sonu Mian simply on the basis of
12. That, the learned lower court also failed to consider the clean
-7-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger as well
as the learned lower Appellate Court failed to consider the age of the
petitioner and rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner without
III. For that, both the learned courts below have also not
considered the period of custody of the petitioner and passed the order
impugned illegally.
IV. For that, both the learned courts below should have considered
the provisions of Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
V. For that , the learned court below as well as the appellate court
VI. For that, the learned Court below as well as learned lower
appellate court should have examined the seizure list prepared by the
informant of this case with regard to description of the country made pistol
is quite same but both the learned court below have failed to consider this
-8-
VII. For that, both the impugned orders are bad in law and on facts
AND/OR
-9-
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble
-2-
dated 25th September , 2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No.91 of 2010 by learned
Sri Manmohan Sharan Lal , Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court
No.2 , Munger ,arising out of order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the learned
2010 , Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.127 of 2010 , whereby and where
dated 05.07.2010 by which the prayer for release on bail of the petitioner
was rejected .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
noise of dry leaf of palm tree ,the informant woke up and opened the door
-3-
of his house then he saw one person entered into the courtyard and the
other person was on the roof of the informant after raising alarm , the
miscreants shot fire on the informant which hit on the wall and thereafter
they were fleeing away and the neighbours of the informant assembled
there after hearing the sound of ring as well as raised alarm and they
started to chase the miscreants and the villagers caught them and
meanwhile the police force reached there and on being searched two
country made pistols were recovered each from their possession and they
disclosed their name as petitioner and one Sonu Mian . Apart from this 5-6
accordingly the informant has full believed that the miscreants came and
entered into the house for dacoity and accordingly the First Information
Report was lodged bearing Munger Kotwali P.S. Case No.127 of 2010
under Sections 452, 458, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27 of
falsely implicated in this case due to confusion because the petitioner was
-4-
near Dilawarpur and he heard the sound of firing and hulla and due to fear
he started to flee away but on confusion the mob caught him along with
one miscreant Sonu Mian ,who is major and both the pistols were
recovered from his possession but the police has shown the pistols in
possession of the petitioner due to confusion and the seizure list of both
the country made pistol are same . In this way seems to be unbelievable
no any case except the present case is pending has been lodged against the
petitioner .
12.04.2010 without any fault and the father of the petitioner undertakes
that he will not be the associates of any other known criminals and the
father of the petitioner also undertakes that his son shall not accompany
8. That, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather mob
and police with a view to show his achievement by catching a minor boy
and the lower appellate court has also misconceived the defense of the
-5-
Justice Board as per Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
application.
lower appellate court has failed to consider that the Section -395 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner because in the
10. That, both the learned court below failed to consider that the
petitioner has no concerned with one Sonu Mian simply on the basis of
-6-
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Juvenile Justice Board , Munger as well
as the learned lower Appellate Court failed to consider the age of the
petitioner and rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner without
considered the period of custody of the petitioner and passed the order
impugned illegally.
IV. For that, both the learned courts below should have considered
the provisions of Section -12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
-7-
V. For that , the learned court below as well as the appellate court
VI. For that, the learned Court below should have considered the
facts and circumstances of this case as well as Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable
VII. For that, both the impugned orders are bad in law and on facts
-8-
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Damodar Singh , son of Late Pradeep Singh ,
…………………………... PETITIONER
VERSUS
at Chapra.
……………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
-2-
order dated 21st June, 2010 in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2010 passed by
Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 registered for the
offences Under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
of the Arms Act ,whereby and where under the petitioner has not been
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble Court
earlier at any stage against the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned
of 2010.
follows :-
-3-
Singh fired shot ,hitting his brother and thereafter the brother
the informant to flee away but the informant started crying and
(iv) It is further stated that the informant carried his brother t the
declared dead.
-4-
(v) It is further claimed that the named accused persons killed the
taking carte of the case and for the aforesaid reason , the
registered as Sonepur P.S. Case No.129 of 2008 under Section 302/34 of the
-5-
close relative namely Dilip Singh of the informant has stated that the
petitioner of the petitioner has been rejected . Paragraph no.53 of the case-
Damodar Singh appears because he was present in the temple before the
occurrence and he had not come at the place of occurrence after incident .
Paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the case-diary has also been evident in the
case only on the basis of that assumption that the two sons of the petitioner
pressure tactics to surrender the two sons of the petitioner before the police .
-6-
10. That, even if the alleged allegation upon the petitioner is
analyzed it would become crystal clear that the said temple was at a
11. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that the reason for the
incident is said to be a dispute between the parties over a land for which
state here in this context that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was also initiated with respect to the same land by
one Sunil Kumar ( Bataidar of the informant ) and the same was dropped
Magistrate , Sonepur , Saran .The petitioner craves the leave of this Hon'ble
Court to produce a copy of the aforesaid order at the time of hearing of the
committed this offence. This is the real fact of the occurrence ,which has
become crystal clear later on when the two sons of the deceased killed one
Shankar Singh by sharp edged weapons and threw his dead body in the
river . The said Shankar Singh is not an accused in the First Information
Report ,who is in fact the main accused . This indicates that the First
-7-
13. That, it is also important to mention here that one Indal Singh
@ Indra Mohan Singh ,who is a named accused figures at serial no.3 in the
First Information Report was not present on the place of occurrence ,rather
was 8.00 A.M. He had participated and qualified . This clearly indicates that
application.
14. That, the deceased namely Shivji Singh was a man of criminal
attempt to murder etc. are pending against him and his family members . It
is relevant to refer here some of the cases instituted against him and family
members e.g. Sonepur P.S. Case No.146 of 1992 , Sonepur P.S. Case
No.34 of 2000, Dariyapur P.S. Case No.103 of 2001 and Dariyapur P.S.
Case No.71 of 2008 etc. In view of the aforesaid fact this possibility
cannot be ruled out that persons inimical to him might have killed the
deceased. It is quite pertinent to state here in this context that the sons of the
deceased namely Nawal Singh and Dilip Singh came to know any how that
their father namely Shivji Singh has been killed by one Shankar Singh of
-8-
Fatehpur ( Raghopur) of the Vaishali District and ,therefore, just few days
after the death of their father ,they forcibly took out the said Shankar Singh
while traveling in a Tempo and killed him by sharp edged weapon and
threw his dead body in the river . The aforesaid occurrence was also reported
in the newspaper .
application.
innocent and he has become an escape goat in this case only due to the
17. That, in view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be set
aside.
-9-
begs to prefer this revision application on amongst
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned trial court wrongly passed the order
without applying the reasonable mind and without going in its totality.
III. For that, the learned trial court has committed serious
case.
IV. For that, the learned trial court has not appreciated that the
V. For that, the learned trial court did not apply his mind on the
reality.
VI. For that, the learned trial court committed serious illegality in
VII. For that, in any view of the matter , the impugned order of not
-10-
miscarriage of justice. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the
pleased to set
AND/OR
AND
kindly be stayed.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
person and he is living outside the State for his livelihood as well as his
family members and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and
order dated 25th March , 2010 , the petitioner was not present in his native
village .
petitioner has got knowledge about the impugned order dated 25.03.2010
immediately rushed to Patna and contacted the learned Advocate for filing
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-3-
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha M. Doshit , the Hon’ble Chief
-2-
and order dated 25th March , 2010 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to
leveled against him on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2010.
Report , which was lodged on the basis of written report of the petitioner
04.08.1997 , in brief , is that deceased Rijhan Pandit aged about -70 years
was issueless and had no one in his near relative and he was the distant
looked after him and provided food and deceased had been taking food in
-3-
the house of informant since last four years but he slept in his house and
the deceased requested the informant to get gift deed executed in respect of
his homestead land and informant avoided the same and deceased Rijhan
villagers knew the same fact and informant returned home at 9 P.M. on
29.07.1997 from the house of deceased having caused food to eat him and
deceased slept in his home. The informant further said that the house of the
away from the house of informant and when on next morning , deceased
did not come to the house of informant , the informant went to the house of
deceased to see him then he found the dead body of the deceased was lying
on mat . The informant further said that throat of deceased was swelling
and blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of the deceased and tongue
and they saw the dead body of the deceased. The informant further said that
he got knowledge that the accused persons had their eyes on homestead land
of the deceased and they were seen coming from the house of the deceased
at 1 O’ Clock at night and he also came to know that Siya Sharan Sah and
his brother including accused got a sale –deed in respect of homestead land
-4-
they knew that deceased was going to execute gift deed on 29.07.1997 in
respect of the homestead land , they murdered him having pressed the throat
of the deceased . The informant further said he went to inform Lal Bandi
petition on that day and informant came to know that accused along with
other accused having armed with arms carried away the dead body of
proceeded with the investigation and during the course of investigation the
Investigating Officer recovered the dead body of the deceased and sent for
Indian Penal Code and the investigation was pending against rest accused
persons .
6. That, it is stated that after submission of the charge-sheet by the
-5-
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code after going through the material available
in the case-diary .
was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
framed against the Opposite-party no.2 under Sections 302,201, 120B and
-6-
deceased.
10. That, it is stated that in his deposition P.W.14 Dr. Ashok Kumar
Singh , who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased , opined that the
cause of death of the deceased due to shock and hemorrhage resulting sharp
that he went to the door of deceased on alarm he saw the deceased was
lying dead .
12. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his deposition said that he went
at the door of deceased on alarm and found that the deceased dead with
swelling on his neck ,broken teeth , bleeding from mouth and mark of
that he went to the door of the deceased in morning, he saw deceased was
lying dead and blood was oozing from his mouth and tongue was
-7-
house of deceased and when he was going to sleep having made water , he
saw Opposite-party no.2 along with other accused coming out from the
house of the deceased and on next day he heard that deceased was dead
case .
15. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
said that he saw the Opposite-party no. 2, coming out from the house of the
deceased in the night and the same was also supported by other
16. That, it is stated that the learned trial court acquitted the
Opposite-party no. 2 only on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
brought the sale-deed with respect to land of the deceased which was
-8-
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order dated
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.10 in his evidence specifically
said that he saw the Opposite-party no. 2 along with other accused persons ,
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3 and 12 , in his
evidence specifically said that after hearing hulla they had gone to the house
of the deceased then they saw the deceased died and his mouth blood was
oozing and the said fact was also supported by the other prosecution
witnesses .
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.14 , who conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased, in his evidence specifically said that the cause of
-9-
death of the deceased due to shock and hemorrhage resulting sharp cut
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party no. 2 from the charges
VI. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
VII. For that, the learned trial court merely on the ground of the
prosecution has failed to produce the sale deed executed in favour of the
charges.
VIII. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party no. 2 , the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that against the Opposite-party no.2 had
complete intention and circumstance for killing of the deceased and he was
seen by the witnesses in the midnight from coming to the house of the
deceased.
IX. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
-10-
AND/OR
K A T I H A.
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
named;
2. That, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants against
the judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 passed by the learned Judicial
-2-
copy of the aforesaid order , the appellants had handed over their file to a
4. That, the file was handed over to the learned Advocate with all
documents before the expiry of limitation period for filing of appeal against
5. That, since the appellants were set out free by the learned
Magistrate himself ,therefore, after handing over the file to the learned
Advocate, the appellants were under the impression that the learned
Advocate must have filed the appeal on their behalf and ,therefore, they had
not consulted their learned Advocate to know about the further steps about
appellants got the knowledge about such dismissal , they had tried their best
to consult their Lawyer but for the reason that he was not available in the
14.05.2010 ,when they came to know that he had not filed any appeal on
behalf of the present appellants and the file too has been lost from his
-3-
office .
8. That, for the aforesaid reason alone , the appeal was not filed
present appellants preferred appeal in time and thus in delay in filing of the
appeal is not condoned , the appellants would suffer an irreparable loss and
injury .
and ,therefore, they don’t want to leave the world with a stigma on their
11. That, the appellants have not filed any application like the
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Honour
(PETITIONER IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Vijay Paswan ,son of Late Paltu Paswan ,
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 29.07. 2009 passed by Sri Bhubna Nand Jha , the learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal no. 32 of 2003 /12
of 2009 , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner and
confirmed the judgment and order dated 04.08.2003 passed by Sri Narayan
which the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to
convict the petitioner to undergo R.I. for three years for the charge Under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, six months for the charge Under
Section -504 of the Indian Penal Code and one month for the charge under
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code however all the sentences run
concurrently .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, as per the is that the
informant Sita Ram Paswan gave his Fardbeyan before the Police on
he was a Clerk at Block Office ,Riga and lived with family and Baswariya
Tola , Sitamarhi but due to flood at that time his wife and daughter Sarita
-3-
Kumar were living at Mehsaul Chowk in the house of his office Staff Bijay
Kumar Singh . The informant further alleged that in the morning , he went
to his wife to deliver some articles and while returning at 9.30 hours in the
way , two ladies of that Mohalla reported that Paltu Paswan and Raju
Paswan and wife of Paltu Paswan had entered in his house with Bhala to
kill his younger brother Raj Kumar and they were calling bad
names ,therefore, he rushed to his house and found three of them , variously
armed with Bhala , Fatta and Danda at his door and the moment he
reached , all of them started calling names and assault by means of Bhala,
Danda , the accused Vijay Paswan inflicted Bhala due to which one finger
of his left had was chopped and other fingers also sustained cut injury . The
informant further alleged that his son Kishore Kumar , Raju Kumar and
younger brother Raj Kumar rushed there and they were assaulted by
Danda , due to which Kishore Kumar and Raju Kumar sustained ruptured
injury over his head , he became senseless , his son Kishore with friend
Suresh tried to take him to Hospital , upon which Vijay Kumar , Kalika
Suresh not to get him treated and when he gained sense then all of them
again assaulted him by Danda but in the meantime , friends of his son came
-4-
and registered a case being Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.187 of 1998 dated
Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner and others and at
the time of framing of the charge , the petitioner and others pleaded not
the case , P.W.3 Sitaram Paswan, the informant himself , P.W.4 Dr. Jai
Prakash Bihari, who examined the injured and P.W.5 Kishore Kumar.
evidences were produced out of which Exhibit-A is the certified copy of the
No.186 of 1998 dated 28.07.1998 which was lodged by the father of the
-5-
which the informant of present case namely Sitaram Paswan , Raj Kumar
admitted about counter case filed by the father of the petitioner . He also
gave contradictory statement during the course of trial which was made
before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure .
12. That, P.W.2 Investigating Officer of the Case in his evidence
said that he did not find sign of blood or brick or stone and he did not meet
deposition also gave contradictory statement ,which was given before the
14. That, it is stated that the informant dug a ditch to close the
Rasta in which Krishna fell down and on being opposed , he slapped him on
face and when the father of the petitioner opposed it ,then he assaulted the
petitioner , his father namely Paltu Paswan and Krishna by sword and for
this the father of the petitioner lodged a case bearing Sitamarhi P.S. Case
No.186 of 2008 dated 28.07.1998 and to save his skin from that case , the
-6-
informant cut his finger by sword and lodged this false case against the
Investigating Officer and Doctor are interested and co-related to each other.
statement given by them before the Investigating Officer under Section 161
undergo R.I. for three years for the charge Under Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code, six months for the charge Under Section -504 of the
Indian Penal Code and one month for the charge under Section 341 of the
-7-
18. That, it is stated that against the order dated 04.08.2003 passed
2003 /12 of 2009 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner was
released on bail .
19. That, it is stated that the said Criminal Appeal was finally heard
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by
the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate ,Sadar Sitamarhi vide
judgment and order dated 29.07.2009 without applying his judicial mind.
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2003 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning their livelihood and the
appeal was taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the dismissal
of appeal and when the petitioner has come his native village , he has got
27.04.2010.
-8-
application.
20. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he has
21. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
other following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
-9-
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
that prior to lodging of the present case by the informant ,the father of the
informant lodged a case against the informant and others and for saving their
skin the informant of the present case lodged the case against the petitioner
and others .
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness to establish his case rather all
the witnesses are interested witness and their statements are not
trustworthy .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
-10-
Officer P.W.2 in his evidence said that he did not find sign of blood or
brick or stone and he did not meet any injured person there .
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to produce one Raju Kumar , who also injured and his evidence is
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that from saving his skin
from the case lodged by the father of the petitioner , the informant himself
cut his finger and lodged the present false case against the petitioner and
others .
IX. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that since the case lodged
justice.
XI. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-11-
charges .
AND/OR
A ND
-12-
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
dated 11.03.2010 passed by Sri R.K. Rateria ,the learned Sessions Judge ,
Katihar in Cr. Appeal No.10 of 2010 , whereby and where under the learned
Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal filed by the
1st Class, Katihar in Case No.CA-2309 of 1999 on the ground that the appeal
was barred by limitation and no ground was made out in the limitation
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
against the judgment dated 14.01.2009 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava , the
for the offences under Section 147, 323, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code
but the learned Magistrate was further pleased to observe that the ends of
-3-
justice will be made if convicts are let out on due condemned instead of
application.
accused persons ,alleging therein interalia that on the date and time of
Chaudhary informed him that the accused persons named in the complaint
that the accused persons are ploughing his land in which he had planted
crop and other persons of criminal character having Riffle and country
true . He also found that Police Personnel had tied hands of his wife and
both daughter-in-law of Sadhu Mandal by the rope of the hand chief and
-4-
they were tied in a Boring in the filed . After watching the said
was cultivating his land , Deep Narayan Gupta ordered other accused
assaulted the complainant by Lathi and accused Sato Mandal had snatched
complainant and he was also tied by the same rope like an animal . Though
the police personnel were present there but no body could hear the cry of
the complainant.
complainant and others were released and thereafter all of them proceeded
taken for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 427 of the Indian
Penal Code and the petitioner along with four other accused persons were
put on trial.
-5-
application.
only three witnesses and one witness was examined on behalf of the
Act passed by the Circle Officer , Falka , rent receipt of land in question for
the year 2006-07 and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in
the defense .
persons ,there was total denial about any such occurrence as alleged by the
show that the land in question is coming in their peaceful possession since
Narain Gupta and the complainant’s claim of Sikmi Right has been set
aside by this Hon'ble Court .On behalf of the defense it was also submitted
that out of 8 witnesses named in the complaint only three has been examined
in the court and they all are family members of the complainant .
-6-
about the delay. The learned Magistrate also overlooked the serious
trial and vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 ,all the
accused persons were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 427
of the Indian Penal Code but while passing the order of sentence the
Offenders Act to the accused persons and they were released after
condemning them .
and ,therefore, he could not consult his learned Advocate for a long time.
-7-
application.
12. That, after receiving the instruction from the petitioner , the
13. That, since the appeal was barred by limitation on the date of its
filing for no fault on the part of the petitioner , an application under Section
5 of Limitation Act was also filed to condone the delay in filing of the
5 of the Limitation Act was not happily worded nor the medical certificate
was brought on record in support of the application for condonation of delay
but apparently it was not a mistake on the part of the petitioner .It is stated
that the petitioner had already submitted his medical certificate to his
learned Lawyer to be placed before the court along with the application
-8-
learned Sessions Judge was not persuaded to condone the delay , the said
limitation petition was dismissed and consequently the appeal was dismissed
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, there was no intentional latches on the part of the
he was suffering from a terminal disease for which he was admitted in the
appeal immediately after he was released for the hospital ,but due to
inadvertence the medical certificate of the petitioner was not annexed with
-9-
IV. For that, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal ,the learned
partly should not suffer and ,therefore, he should have taken a lenient view
and should have condone the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Bihar.….………………….……OPPOSITE -PARTY.
To,
-2-
Appeal No.19 of 2001/ 01 of 2010 whereby and where under the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirm the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the learned
2009 arising out of Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 by which the learned
Juvenile Justice Board has been pleased to declare the son of the petitioner
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
alleging therein that his son Navin Kumar was residing in the house of his
grand father ( Nana ) since childhood for the purposes of reading . The
Kumar Mandal called his son by telephone for seeing the movie and on his
call , his son had gone with Sunil Mandal but his son did not return to house
-3-
till 20.02.2009 . The informant suspected that his son might be kidnapped
case being Dumra P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 registered for
the offences under Section 364 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and further
application.
5. That, it is stated that the son of the petitioner was not named in
the First Information Report rather the First Information Report was lodged
name of the son of the petitioner was transpired in the present case.
Judicial Magistrate , Sitamarhi for separating the trial of the son of the
petitioner
-4-
and send the case to the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board ,
Sitamarhi ,since on the date of alleged occurrence , the son of the petitioner
Magistrate , Sitamarhi vide his order dated 09.07.2009 separated the trial of
son of the petitioner and the case was sent to the court of learned Juvenile
Justice Board and all of them deposed that the son of the petitioner was
born on 11.09.1991 and on the date of alleged occurrence he was below 18
years.
application.
evidences were produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board such as
granted by the Bihar School Examination Board in which the age of son of
-5-
application.
Justice Board a Medical Board was also constituted for assessment of age of
the son of the petitioner and accordingly the son of the petitioner appeared
before the Medical Board and Medical Board assessed the age of the son of
assessing the age of the son of the petitioner and only relied upon the report
of the Medical Board and the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide his
-6-
application.
age to constitute the Medical Board but the learned Juvenile Justice Board
constitute the Medical Board and relied upon it and disbelieved the age
16. That, it is stated that against the order of the learned Juvenile
upon the law involved in the case , has been pleased to dismiss the appeal
filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 31.03.2010 and confirm the order
-7-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the son of the petitioner had appeared in the
issued by the Bihar School Examination Board the age of the son of the
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned courts
below failed to appreciate that the witnesses produced before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board consistently said that the son of the petitioner was
-8-
born on 11.09.1991 and on the date of occurrence the son of the petitioner
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Courts
occasion to constitute the Medical Board and rely upon the report of the
Medical Board.
V. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned courts
ought to have considered upon the report of the Medical Board who assessed
the age of son of the petitioner around 20 years and disbelieved the
-9-
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
-2-
and order dated 11.01.2010 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the
No.04 of 2006 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has
been pleased to reject the petition filed by the for divorce from the Opposite-
party no.2.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Opposite-party no.2
District – Sitamarhi under the customary rights of Hindu and since then the
petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband and wife.
Opposite-party no.2 , one male issue was born namely Fekan Sah in the year
2005 .
5. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 had developed
illicit relation with one Ram Vinay Sah ,son of Late Biltu Sah , village-
-3-
the house of the petitioner with her all belongings like ornaments ,clothes
etc. worth Rs.20,000/- and now lives with Ram Vinay Sah and she is living
the said Ram Vinay Sah is planning to commit the murder of the petitioner
with Opposite-party no.2 more than seven years at village- Majhgama , P.S.
and the Opposite-party no.2 from 15.07.2005 has been living separately in
Sah.
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as
the parties ,the case was compromised between both the parties. After
-4-
compromise ,the Opposite-party no.2 resided with the petitioner for some
village- Fatahpur ,P.S. Sonebarsa with Ram Vinay Sah , who is the brother –
11. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 has last co-
habitation with the petitioner on 14.07.2005 and thereafter she left the
house of the petitioner and began to live with her brother-in-law namely
Ram Vinay Sah and has been living in constant adultery with him as she fell
Sitamarhi.
party no.2 is not ready to leave parting with Ram Vinay Sah ,therefore, the
petitioner had filed the divorce case against the Opposite-party no.2 which
13. That, it is stated that after institution of the divorce case, the
learned Family court issued a notice to the Opposite-party no.2 and after
service of notice the Opposite-party no.2 appeared in the case and filed her
written statement .
14. That, it is stated that after filing of the written statement , the
Opposite-party no.2 did not appear in the court and left the pairvi of the
case ,which shows that the Opposite-party no.2 has no interest in the case
-5-
passed the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2010 ,whereby and
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to reject the
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 herself left
III. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 did not
-6-
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.2 is not ready
AND/OR
AND
During the pendency of this application ,the
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
3. Sri Kedar Nath Singh @ Kedar Singh ,son of Basudeo Singh @ Narad
Singh
-2-
District –
Saran at Chapra.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Mishra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
petitioner above named is directed against the judgment and order dated
-3-
Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.III, Patna in Sessions Trial No.1557 of
2007 / 110 of 2007 , whereby and where under the learned Additional
to 9.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2008.
07.03.1992 when the informant( petitioner herein ) along with his brother
Parmalik Singh , Satya Narayan Singh , Birendra Singh and Bachcha Singh
Harendra Singh came with a red colour Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Reg.
No.BED-2221 .
Prabhu Nath Singh ) , Lalan Singh , Dudh Nath Singh , Nand Kishore
Pandey and four others ,whom the informant claimed to identify from
-4-
instigated other accused persons to kill Raju which would consequently end
the Drama ,whereupon accused Prabhu Nath Singh fired from his
down.
The informant further stated that Arjun Singh and Dharm Nath
Singh also fired at Raju Singh , causing injury on chest and other parts of the
body . It was also stated that Kedar Singh fired at Kishori Rai ,who was the
private bodyguard of Raju Singh , causing injury over his head and when he
fell down Harendra Singh , Bindeshwari Prasad , Lalan Singh , Dudh Nath
Krishna Rastogi of Mashrakh also sustained injury and due to fear the
informant and others in order to save them fled away from the place of
occurrence , Raj Narain Singh and Kishori Rai died on spot. The motive
behind the occurrence was said to be the Chief Minister Program organized
at Mashrakh by the deceased persons and that Raju Singh was a witness in
Mashrakh P.S. Case No.26 of 1992 dated 07.03.1992 for the offences Under
Sections 147 , 148,149, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -27
-5-
nine accused persons including the petitioner nos. 2 to 9 and one Arjun
Sigh , whereas it submitted final report against Basudeo Singh ,the father of
taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions . Since accused
Arjun Singh was killed some where ,therefore, the case was committed for
7. That, this case has got a chequered history but the petitioner is
not required to bring all these facts on record ,suffice would be state that
association with hard core criminal ,since it was difficult of the District
Administration of Saran to conduct trial of the cases pending against
Opposite-party no.2 and his men at Chapra ,the District Magistrate Saran
had made a request from the State Government for transfer of the cases
pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men for trial to some other
Sessions Division .
8. That, at the instance of the State ,the matter was brought to the
notice of this Hon'ble Court and the orders of this Hon'ble Court ,different
Sessions Trial pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men at
Division ,
-6-
Hazaribag . After the records were transfer when the Opposite-parties were
summoned by the learned trial court, the Opposite-party no.2 used his
influence and did not follow the learned trial court at Hazaribag to
9. That, in the mean time there was division of the State of Bihar
, under the orders of this Hon'ble Court ,the present Sessions Trial and other
cases also were transferred from Hazaribag to Bhagalpur for the purposes of
trial and after receipt of the record from Hazaribag in the year 2002 the
Sessions Court at Bhagalpur issued summons to the accused persons to face
trial.
great extent and did not allow the court to proceed in the matter till 2006.
12. That, after the process was complete ,prosecution was directed
13. That, it is relevant to state that in the year 2004 , the Opposite-
-7-
Party. In the year 2005 when general elections were held for constitution of
United Political Party was formed in the State of Bihar . Since the Opposite-
party no.2 was sitting Member of Parliament of the party and he was
and were engaged to manage the witnesses likely to depose against the
14. That, it is stated that since five different Sessions Trial were
Narayan Jha was appointed as the Public Prosecutor Bhagalpur . Since the
very beginning of trial the conduct of said Public Prosecutor was since
-8-
application.
close the evidence of the prosecution side after the examination of only
whenever the petitioner went to the Public Prosecutor along with the
witnesses ,who were to support the prosecution case, the Public Prosecutor
did not produce them for evidence for some reason or the other and they
for himself and when a petition was filed before the learned trial court to
allow the informant to prosecute his case through a private lawyer , the
P.W.12 and had supported the case of prosecution as spelt out in the
Fardbeyan .
-9-
Rastogi , who had also sustained injuries in the said occurrence , Mahadeo
Satyadeo Prasad , Hari Madhav Singh , Ashok Singh and others . A perusal
investigation though they have fully supported the case of the prosecution
but since most of them were gained over by the accused persons ,they did
not support the prosecution case when they were examined as witness before
the court.
-10-
namely Sri Kant Rai ,who had instituted the case and had recorded the
that he had recorded the Fardbeyan and further statement of the informant
recorded the statement of Arun Kumar Singh , Munna Singh ,Bachcha Singh
Ram Bilas Singh , Jata Sah , Mahesh Sharma , Binod Kumar, Jamadar
had fully supported the case of prosecution but since they were gained over
21. That, it is stated that since the learned Public Prosecutor was
also in connivance with the accused persons , he had not even drawn the
diary. Informant was not allowed to engage a private lawyer to conduct his
case.
party no.2 and his men , to gain over the witnesses ,some how or the other
and when they went to extent of assault to the witnesses in the Court Room
at Bhagalpur in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the court and the
-11-
trial from Bhagalpur to Patna after hearing the parties on a Habeas Corpus
application filed by one Harendra Rai ,the brother of deceased Rajendra Rai,
who was also killed by the Opposite-party no.2 and his men .
23. That, since the attitude of the learned trial court seissigned
with the present case was also doubtful , Cr. Misc. No.13454 of 2007 was
filed by the petitioner for transfer of this case also from Bhagalpur to Patna
for trial.
24. That, the aforesaid case filed by the petitioner was heard with
other matters by a bench of this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated
10.08.2007 , a bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to transfer all other
four cases pending against the Opposite-party no.2 and his men pending at
-12-
25. That, after receipt of the records and as per direction of this
Hon'ble Court ,vide aforesaid order dated 10.08.2007 , the records of the
present trial was also transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
Fast Track Court No.3 , Patna for trial, where Sessions Trial No.19 of 2003
was pending . At that point of time one Sri K.K. Sinha was the Presiding
26. That, after the transfer of the above noted trials against the
Opposite-party no.2 and his men to Patna Sessions Division , the State
Government had appointed one Rakesh Kumar Sinha as the Special Public
Prosecutor to conduct the pending trial against the Opposite-party no.2 and
his men pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast
27. That, the said Special Public Prosecutor Sri Rakesh Kumar
Sinha was not even eligible to be appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor
-13-
application.
28. That, it is stated that Sri Sinha was enrolled as an Advocate at
the roll of the Bihar State Bar Council on 13.11.1998 and thus less than 10
were not examined at Bhagalpur either because summons were not served to
them or because they were not produced by the learned Public Prosecutor
for evidence , the Special Public Prosecutor refused to file any petition in
this regard.
Munna Singh engaged a private lawyer and filed a petition on his behalf
before the learned trial court on 27.06.2008 with a prayer to record his
-14-
evidence since he is an important witness of the case and had singed the
seizure list.
prosecution case but the learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the
application and submitted before the learned trial court that there is no merit
in the petition and it should be rejected . The learned trial court rejected the
application.
32. That, the said order of the learned trial court was challenged by
one Awadhesh Kumar Singh before this Hon'ble Court by filing Cr. Misc.
No.47619 of 208 . After hearing the parties , a bench of this Hon'ble Court
stayed the proceedings before the learned trial court . On the next day of
stay granted by this Hon'ble Court , the case was mentioned on behalf of the
State and the instance of the State ,the case was again listed under the
dismiss the said application on the ground that it has been filed to delay the
-15-
trial . The order was deserved and it was delivered on 19.12.2008 when the
application.
following
-16-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the part of the impugned judgment and order is bad in
II. For that , the Prosecutor State had miserably failed to conduct
a free and fair trial of the case because the Opposite-party no.2 was non-else
but a sitting Member of Parliament of the Ruling Party and ,therefore, the
presence of the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State but there
was no protest on behalf of the Public Prosecutor and whenever attempt was
made by the petitioner to raise the protest , it was opposed by the Prosecutor
State.
IV. For that, the important witnesses were driven away by the
learned Public Prosecutor at Bhagalpur when they had approached for their
evidence and they were not being examined before the court ,unless and
until permission was granted by the accused persons to get them examine .
Thus opportunity was granted to the accused persons to gain over the
witnesses.
least two Prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.nos.12 and 19 have fully supported
-17-
VI. For that, while passing the impugned judgment ,the learned
trial court failed to appreciate that even the police Officers have stated in
their deposition that they had recorded the statement of witnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if that would have been
parties and the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the witnesses
were gained over , order of acquittal would not have been recorded in the
case.
VII. For that, during the course of trial ,the learned trial court was
informed that the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor has been
conduct the trial , the learned trial court overlooked the serious infirmity
VIII. For that, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial
by the learned trial court in different cases against the Opposite-party no.2
and his men ,the State was directed to file revision application against the
judgment and order passed by the same Presiding Officer in favour of the
-18-
law .
against them .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
-2-
To,
the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 passed by Sri Surendra Prasad Pandey ,
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No. III Sitamarhi in
offences under Sections 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code , whereby and
leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against the Opposite-
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2009 and order
dated 24.12.2009.
-3-
Report in brief is that the informant Pramod Singh ( P.W.8) submitted his
while returning from Sitamarhi at 7.20 P.M. due to fill up petrol in the
Scooter and he proceeded to his home but he could not reach home . The
informant further said he and other were waited Baliram Singh till late
night .The informant further said that he traced him and he came to know
that accused Ajay Kumar resident of Sheohar and Pintu Singh resident of
village- Khansan under Riga Police- Station were seen moving at about 7
P.M. by Sumo Vita of while colour along with unknown persons . The
informant further said that both the aforesaid persons committed several
with the investigation and during the course of investigation the police
-4-
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
named accused persons including the Opposite-party no. 2,3 and 4 under
against all the accused persons including the Opposite-party nos. 2, 3 and
4 also under the same Section after going through the material available in
the case-diary .
committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 14.05.2007 for its
disposal and the charges were framed against all the accused persons
-5-
Ext.3 :Fardbeyan
-6-
Cr.P.C.
12. That, it is stated that P.W.4 in his evidence before the learned
trial court specifically said that the accused Pintu Chaudhary , Keshav
13. That, it is stated that P.W.6 victim in his evidence before the
learned trial court specifically said that Keshav Chaudhary indicated him ,
pistol in their hand . He also said that he identified the accused Rajan
no.3) . He also said in his evidence that accused Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-
party no.3) took out Rs.60,000/- from the Dicky of his Scooter and
14. That, it is stated that in his evidence P.W.7 victim also deposed
that after releasing from the custody of the accused persons ,during the
course of investigation he had visited along with the police personnel and he
-7-
case in his evidence said that the victim P.W.7 identified the house of
Sanjay Singh (Opposite-party no.2) , Ajay Singh , Sunil Singh , where the
victim was kept by the accused persons. He also in his evidence said that the
victim P.W.7 identified the Tuntun Mishra ( Opposite-party no.3) and Rajan
16. That, it is stated that the P.W.12 ,who conducted the Test
17. That, it is stated that the P.W.13 , who conducted the Test
Identification Parade in his evidence before the learned trial court said that
in the test identification parade , the victim identified the accused Sanjay
case, it is apparent that in the abduction of the victim P.W.7 ,the Opposite-
party nos.2 ,3and 4 are the vital roll and in their houses the victim was
confined .
19. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
-8-
specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 are the vital roll in
kidnapping of the victim , acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2,3 and 4 from
the charges.
20. That, it is stated that the learned trial court acquitted the
Opposite-party nos. 2 ,3 and 4 only on the ground that the victim did not
give their name in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure but the learned trail court failed to consider that the victim did
not give their name in his statement under Section -164 of the Code of
very afraid since his statement was recorded just after releasing from the
GROUNDS:
-9-
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 in his evidence
specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 3 had driven the Motorcycle
having armed with pistol in their hand at the time of kidnapping and he had
4 , the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 in his evidence
and 3 and during the course of police investigation he identified the houses
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 in his evidence
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that in his evidence the P.W.11
Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 by the P.W.7 where P.W.7 was confined after
his kidnapping .
-10-
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.4 in his evidence
specifically said that Opposite-party no.2 and others are moving around at
the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.7 identified the
VIII. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2, 3 and 4 ,the
learned trial court ought to have consider that P.W.7 did not given the name
the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate but he failed
to consider that the statement of the victim was recorded just after releasing
from the custody of the kidnappers and at that relevant time he was very
IX. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 ,3 and 4 from
X. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
XI. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
-11-
It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that your
pleased to set
AND/OR
I.A.No.(Crl.)____________________/ OF 2010.
IN
Procedure ;
AN D
VERSUS
To,
-2-
above named is for his release on bail during the pendency of the present
revision application .
revision application ,the petitioner has not made a prayer for bail ,therefore,
against the judgment and order dated 7 th Day of December , 2009 passed
Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal no. 86 of 2006 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal
appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated
13th July ,2006 passed by Sri Tribhuwan Nath , the learned Judicial
convict the petitioner and one another to undergo R.I. for two years
Under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.2,000/.
-3-
petitioner was on bail and after passing the impugned order by the learned
appellate court ,the petitioner could not surrender before the learned court
below and without surrendering before the learned trial court filed the
attached the surrender slip with the main criminal revision application and
accordingly the case was registered and listed before the Bench of this
Hon'ble Court.
evidence of the witnesses as well as the First Information Report and the
prosecution has failed to establish the case ,therefore, the petitioner deserves
to be released on bail.
7. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
-4-
AND / O R
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
………………………..………OPPOSITE –PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and where under the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Chief
which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger has accepted the
Final Report and discharge the petitioner from the case , was set aside and
the matter was remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
Report is described here under for adjudication by this Hon'ble Court . The
prosecution case , in brief is that the informant namely Sunita Devi gave her
therein that on the same day at about 4 P.M. when the informant was sitting
in her house then six (6) named accused persons including the petitioner
armed with various weapons Lathi, Danda, piece of brick and stone and by
-3-
abusing said to transfer the land forcibly upon which the husband of the
informant denied to transfer the said land and accordingly Sanjay Sharma ,
consequently the son of the informant namely Ranjit Sharma, who was
sitting in the courtyard sustained bullet injury and having seen his injured
son, the husband of the informant as well as other persons mentioned in the
with gun shot , lathi and piece of brick and stone and consequently they
have also sustained injury and thereafter the informant and others started to
persons continuously opened fire and brick batting . The son of the
informant died on the spot . It is further alleged that the Sanjay Sharma ,
Niranjan Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Sanjiv Sharma all are in police service
had come in their native house and Ram Chandra Sharma as well as Sri
Niwas Sharma live at their home . The land of the informant situated at the
North Boundary of the house of the petitioner and they wanted to get
transfer the said land . The other persons have seen the occurrence and
informed the police through mobile and police came at the place of
Sadar Hospital Munger for their treatment . The cause behind the occurrence
-4-
is land dispute and all the accused persons committed such offence and
accordingly the Fardbeyan was recorded and the First Information Report
was lodged.
A true photo stat as well as typed
this petition.
Andaman and Nikobar Island being a Solider in Indian Army and his
it is alleged that all the accused persons named in the First Information
along with Niranjan and Sanjay having armed with gun and rest of the
accused started brick batting and one Ranjit Sharma sustained gun shot
injury. In the First Information Report ,the allegation of firing against three
accused persons including this petitioner and the Post-Mortem Report goes
to show there is one gun shot injury and a small pilot was received and the
gun shot has scattered and due to which there are three fire arm injury and
cause of death opined by the doctor due to fire arm as well as Head Injury
-5-
only one fire opened by one of the accused persons but the Fardbeyan of the
informant was drawn in exaggerated manner by the prosecution party and
simply the informant put her signature on the Fardbeyan itself . In this way
5. That, during the course of investigation ,it has come that the
petitioner was on duty and when he came to know about his accusation then
and he was discharging his duty in the Unit at a field firing and not in the
village during the time of occurrence. Apart from this the Investigating
Officer verified and he came at conclusion that he was not present at the
and the same has been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,
Munger vide order dated 30.03.2009 . Not even only the plea of alibi is
-6-
petition .
the instant case ,a First Information Report was lodged earlier by the father
of the petitioner bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No.41 of 2008 in which the
husband of the informant as well as her son have been made accused for the
offence under Sections 447, 385,34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act for demand of Rangdari . The aforesaid case lodged by the
father of the petitioner is going on and the process was initiated against the
accused persons . The instant case is the counter blast of Muffasil P.S. Case
his view that the plea of alibi cannot be taken at this stage rather it should
be
-7-
placed when the accused enter into the defense after the prosecution
accepted the final report by discussing the alibi of the petitioner on the
upon receiving a Police Report such facts or upon information received from
any person other than the Police Officer or upon on his own knowledge and
when it is found that the facts or material on record does not constitutes the
offence then he has ample power to accept the final report submitted by the
police and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly passed the
present case . It is also relevant to mention that the plea of alibi has been
participate in the occurrence when he was discharging his duty at the ends
in perusing the report meticulously and said after lodging the First
Information Report some months after the plea of alibi was taken and the
certificate of Commanding Officer was also filed to show that on the date of
occurrence the petitioner was else where and the Investigating Officer
accepted the same .On the contrary when the petitioner was at Andaman
-8-
and Nikobar Island and when he came to know about the accusation by his
family members and ,thereafter he reported to his authority .In this way
there is no any latches on the part of the petitioner as well as his officials.
Coronal to the Police Officials with regard to the petitioner was not present
at the time of occurrence and the same was approved by the Police
Officials . Apart from this the First Information Report is not the
evidence ,rather it is a part of allegation and the same has to be tested as per
the evidence or document collected in the records of the case and as per the
then it should be looked into as earliest . In this way the impugned order
-9-
,Munger in Criminal Revision No.133 of
this
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger did not apply his
III. For that, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger did not
IV. For that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly
exonerated the petitioner from the charges leveled against him but the
learned Sessions Judge wrongly set aside the order dated 30.03.2009
V. For that, the learned Sessions Judge , Munger did not apply his
mind as well as did not examine the records of the proceeding meticulously
passed the order impugned without any rhyme and reason ,which is quite
illegal and beyond the Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
VI. For that, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly passed the
AND/OR
AND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
and order dated 21.10.2009 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary , the
2008 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
party no.2 by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance
case . The petitioner has been further directed to make payment of arrears
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Opposite-party no.2
in the month of March, 2004 under the customary rights of Hindu and since
then the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband
and wife.
her parental house with her father by the custom of Duragaman (second
marriage ).
-3-
5. That, the parents of the Opposite-party no.2 are very litigant
and shrewd person and they always instigating the Opposite-party no.2 to
not go to her in-law’s house ( Sasural ) with the petitioner without their
consent or permission.
occasions to take the Opposite-party no.2 in his house but the Opposite-
party no.2 did not ready to come with the house of the petitioner since she
conducted in which the Opposite-party no.2 flatly refused to live with the
before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi for restitution
2007 but unfortunately the said case was dismissed in default due to making
application.
-4-
9. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 had also filed a
case against the petitioner and other family members under Sections 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi ,the matter was
between the petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 which was instituted as
10. That, it is stated that after institution of the case, the learned
appearance but the said notice was returned by the Post Office with the
11. That, it is stated that the said case was returned back to the
concerned court by the learned Legal Aid Committee, Sitamarhi vide order
dated 23.07.2008 with the comment that the Opposite-party no.2 is not
-5-
12. That, notwithstanding all the aforesaid circumstances ,the
No.21 of 2008.
petitioner but the said notice was not served to the petitioner since the
petitioner is a poor labourer and he is doing the work of labour outside the
State ,therefore, ,the petitioner could not appear before the court .
herself , her father and mother ,who are the interested witnesses.
16. That, in fact the Opposite-party no.2 herself deserted the life of
the petitioner and she did not ready to live with the petitioner even after the
best efforts made by him which is evident from the order passed by the
-6-
Legal Aid Centre, Sitamarhi as well as the Matrimonial case filed by the
petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Sitamarhi for
case.
labourer on daily wages basis and his monthly income is not more than
21.10.2009 ,whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has been
Rs.1,500/- per month since the date of filing of maintenance case i.e.
Opposite-party no.2 at the rate of 1,500/- per month under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure . The learned Principal Judge has also been
within 45 days.
-7-
to prefer this revision application on amongst the
other following
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the facts stated in the
order passed by the Legal Aid Centre , Sitamarhi that the Opposite-party
no.2 is not ready to live with the petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 is not
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that even after the best efforts of the
petitioner ,the Opposite-party no.2 did not ready to live with the petitioner .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
deserted the life of the petitioner though the petitioner is ready to keep the
Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and surety ,therefore, she would
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in any event an order for payment of
-8-
interim maintenance cannot be passed with retrospective effect i.e. from the
VI. For that, while fixing the maintenance , the learned Principal
VII. For that, the maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge
AND/OR
AND
-9-
During the pendency of this application ,the
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER.
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 7th Day of December , 2009 passed by Sri Bipin Bihari
Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 13 th July ,2006
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has been pleased to convict the
petitioner and one another to undergo R.I. for two years Under Section
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, is that the informant
Singh and Umesh Singh through the Police Jeep for night patrolling and
-3-
patrolling at about 1.30 A.M. , he got secret information that a pick up van
of white colour is running away along with stolen article from a shop.
The informant further alleged that when the information was
proceeded for Chandani Chowk and started checking of the vehicles and
during the course of checking of vehicle a Pick Up Van of white colour was
seen coming towards Bairia with high speed ,then the said van was signaled
to sop and the said van was stopped and Driver of the concerned van asked
to search then the Driver along with five other persons started to fleeing
away from the Van , the culprits were chased by the Armed Forces and two
of the culprits were apprehended and three were succeeded to flee away.
disclosed his name as Suresh Chaudhary ,driver of the van and another
The informant further alleged that the said Van was searched
and during the course of search Dhoti , Sari , Clothes and some ornaments
of Gold and Silver were recovered and the same were seized after preparing
-4-
Information Report and registered a case being Brahmpura P.S. Case No.33
Report , Police proceeded with the investigation and during the course of
investigation , the Investigating Officer found that the said seized theft
Ahiyapur Police- Station being Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89 of 2005 for the
offences under Sections 467,379 , 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
Sections 461, 379, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Ahiyapur P.S. Case
No.89 of 2005 and under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in
against both the accused persons under Sections 367, 379 ,411 and 414 of
Umesh Kumar Home Guard, P.W.2 Sudhir Kumar Singh seizure list witness
-5-
, P.W.3 Dharm Nath Rai Home Guard & seizure list witness , P.W.4 Shiv
Chandra Singh Home Guard , P.W.5 Parmanand Rai Home Guard , P.W.6
Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005 in his deposition before the learned trial
court deposed that he never identified any one and the seized articles has
11. That, it is stated that the seizure list witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 in
their deposition before the learned trial court deposed that the articles were
recovered from the Pick up Van not from the possession of the petitioner .
12. That, it is stated that P.Ws.1 ,3,4,5 ,7 , 8 and 9 are the Police
Personnel ,whereas the P.W.6 is the informant of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89
it is admitted fact that the petitioner is the Driver of the said Pick Up van
from which the seized articles were recovered but in fact the petitioner has
no concerned with the said articles since the said van is a Public Goods
Carriage Van on the hire basis and if the petitioner has nexus with the said
goods then he did not stop the vehicle on the signal of the Police .
-6-
14. That, it is stated that according to the First Information Report
raiding three persons have been succeeded to flee away ,who hired the
police failed to arrest those persons ,who succeeded to flee away since the
the case, who deposed before the court that he took over the charge of
investigation from one Chandrakant Yadav but the said Chandrakant Yadav
did not come to depose before the court and in absence of his
17. That, it is stated that seizure list witness P.W. 2 Sudhir Kumar
Singh deposed before the court at the time of search and seizure he was
sleeping at his house but he did not disclose that how he had come to the
18. That, it is stated that P.W.6 in his evidence did not say that this
petitioner had stolen the articles from his shop ,rather he only identified the
theft articles.
Vehicle and he has no concerned with the goods loaded in the van either
-7-
theft or not .
20. That, it is stated that the prosecution has failed to establish the
offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ,therefore, there is no
occasion to prove the case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and all the witnesses are
22. That, it is stated that the learned Magistrate ,without taking into
vide judgment and order dated 13th July ,2006 in Trial No.1087 of 2006 to
undergo R.I. for two years Under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code
and fine of Rs.2,000/ only on the ground that the seized articles was
application.
22. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
-8-
in the court of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge , Muzaffarpur , who
also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order
passed by the learned trial court with a certain modification that the period
23. That, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he has
24. That, the petitioner is behind the bars about a year and during
trial court ,the learned trial court granted provisional bail which was also
26. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-9-
Trial No.1087 of 2006, the above named
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court
II. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
that the petitioner is a Driver of the Public Carriage Vehicle and on the
signal of Police he stopped the vehicle and if the petitioner has any nexus
with the said article , he did not stop the vehicle and tried to escape away
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that according to the First
Information Report on the signal of the police ,the petitioner stopped the
vehicle and three persons succeeded to flee away and on query the petitioner
disclosed his name but he did not disclose the name of those persons ,who
-10-
succeeded to flee away and if the petitioner has any nexus with them then
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution
witnesses except P.W.2 and P.W.6 is the Police Personnel whereas the
P.W.6 is the informant of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.89 of 2005 and P.W.2 is
the man of Police Personnel, it means that all the witnesses are interested
witnesses .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
deposition said that he only identified the articles ,who was theft from his
shop but he did not say anything that this petitioner had stolen the articles
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the P.W.2 Sudhir
Kumar , seizure list witness in his deposition said that at the time of search
and seizure he was sleeping at his house but he did not disclose that how he
reached at the Police – Station for putting his signature on the seizure list.
VIII. For that ,while convicting the learned trail court as well as
appellate court failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not establish his
case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ,therefore, there is no
occasion to establish the case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.
-11-
IX. For that ,while convicting the learned trail court as well as
appellate court failed to appreciate that the first Investigating Officer of the
case, who conducted investigation in earlier stage did not examine by the
prosecution .
examine the Police Officer, in whose presence the Test Identification Parade
XI. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
XII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
-12-
and also the judgment and order dated 13 th
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Resident of village- Tumba Pahad , P.O. Chai, P.S. Jhajha ,District – Jamui.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
- Jamui.
……………..…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
-2-
and where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
interim maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case . The
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Opposite-party no.2
in the year 1998 under the customary rights of Santhal and since then the
petitioner and the Opposite-party no.2 were living as the husband and wife.
4. That, the petitioner was blessed with two sons with the
wedlock of the Opposite-party no.2. The eldest son of the petitioner is more
-3-
noticed that the conduct of the Opposite-party no.2 was not fair . The
petitioner ,therefore, the petitioner overlooked her pas conduct and tried to
make her relationship cordial with the Opposite-party no.2 for which the
petitioner was given his all love and affection to the Opposite-party no.2.
7. That, yet the Opposite-party no.2 did not give up her bad
habits .Before the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the
in this Hon'ble High Court . Initially after the marriage , the Opposite-party
no.2 was living in the petitioner’s native village but when the petitioner was
informed by his parents about the conduct of the Opposite-party no.2, the
petitioner took her to Patna and resided with the Opposite-party no.2in a
by this Hon'ble Court ,he shifted his residence from Yarpur to Adalatganj in
Marandi aged about 24-25 years is the son of Shyam Sundar Marandi.
-4-
Court ,therefore, and taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner ,the
Opposite-party no.2 had developed her illicit relation with Pappu Marandi
10. That, some how or the other ,when the petitioner could learnt
about the illicit relations of Opposite-party no.2 with next door neighbours
Pappu Marandi , he had put pressure upon the Opposite-party no.2 to give
up her bad habits and live in the house with dignities ,which was since not
would come in the way of her relationship with Pappu Marandi ,she would
11. That, since the petitioner is a peace loving person, he did not
invite any confrontation with the Opposite-party no.2 ,rather tried his best to
their native place ,the Opposite-party no.2 after the petitioner and children
slept ,put the lock on the door and went to the quarter of Pappu Marandi
where she stayed for whole of the night and would returned back only when
the petitioner and the children had woke up but they were behind the lock in
their quarter.
-5-
option but to inform the parents of the liabilities about her illicit relation
with Pappu Marandi and requested them to come Patna ,so that the
17.01.2009.
14. That, some how or the other ,when the Opposite-party no.2 had
the information about the arrival of her parents on 17.01.2009 ,when she
petitioner was under the impression that according to her usual habits ,she
would be coming back to the quarter on 17.01.2009 but since the Opposite-
party no.2 had the information of arrival of her parents on 17.01.2009 in the
the petitioner’s quarter ,they were informed about the incident in great detail.
Since they were aware about the past conduct of the Opposite-party no.2,
they had first consoled the petitioner to forget the Opposite-party no.2 and
they also assured that they would also forget the Opposite-party no.2 was
ever their daughter but for reasons best known to them , they changed their
statements in the evening and asked the informant to search the Opposite-
party no.2 ,otherwise they would file a criminal case against the petitioner
-6-
search of the Opposite-party no.2 ,when she was found along with Pappu
Danapur , Manpura . The petitioner made a call on the cell phone of a co-
was present at the petitioner’s quarter from Danapur ,Manpura and the
Opposite-party no.2 had talked with her parents . In that conversation with
the parents ,the Opposite-party no.2 flatly refused to stay with the petitioner
had expressed her will to marry with Pappu Marandi . She had further
stated to her parents that if they would compel the Opposite-party no.2 to
17. That, after that consultation with the Opposite-party no.2 , the
parents were looking quite satisfied . They stayed at the quarter of the
petitioner for two days but again on 3 rd day they turned their voice and
asked the petitioner to arrange their face to face meeting with the Opposite-
party no.2 . Under compulsion ,the petitioner hired an Auto Rickshaw and
sister’s house of Pappu Marandi , where the Opposite-party no.2 was stayed
and after face to face meeting with the Opposite-party no.2 , they failed to
bring the Opposite-party no.2 to their own terms to live with the petitioner
and thereafter they came back . One Arjun Murmu was also along with
them.
-7-
back to their native place whereupon they asked the petitioner to return their
daughter at their native place otherwise the petitioner was again threatened
for his implication in a false criminal case instituted for murder of their
daughter . Since ,the petitioner was helpless and had no other remedy to get
the dispute resolved amicably without shelter of the court, he filed a petition
application.
he gathered the truth of the information filed by the petitioner ,he asked the
parents of Pappu
-8-
20. That, since the parents of Pappu Marandi were aware of the
whereabouts , where the Opposite-party no.2 was living with Pappu Marandi
,they informed them and on their information Pappu Marandi along with the
statement of the Opposite-party no.2 was taken by the Police, wherein she
flatly refused and expressed her desire to live with Pappu Marandi.
22. That, since the Opposite-party no.2 was adamant to marry and
live with Pappu Marandi ,when this message went to the society of
stated that she would not live with the petitioner and would live with Pappu
-9-
the house of her parents and the petitioner was staying in his quarter with
his two children born with the wedlock of the Opposite-party no.2.
2009.
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
-10-
application.
petitioner and on receipt of the notice ,the petitioner appeared before the
filed on behalf of the Opposite-party no.2 and after hearing the parties , the
learned Principal Judge vide his order dated 25.11.2009 directed the
the rate of 2000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure .
GROUNDS:
-11-
II. For that, while passing the impugned order , the learned
III. For that, while passing the impugned order, the learned
living in adultery .
IV. For that, while passing the impugned order ,the learned
is living in adultery with Pappu Marandi and has ,therefore, denied /refused
to live with the petitioner ,she would cannot be entitled to any maintenance
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that in any event an order for payment of
interim maintenance cannot be passed with irrespective effect i.e. from the
-12-
No.20M of 2009 .
AND/OR
AND
IN
Cr. Rev. NO._________________/OF 2010.
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
petitioner has got no knowledge about the passing of the aforesaid order.
4. That, it is stated that when the legal notice was served to the
21.10.2009 ,therefore, the petitioner has got knowledge about the impugned
petitioner applied for the certified copy of the aforesaid order and after
obtaining the certified copy of the said order and arranged the money , the
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
-3-
reasons aforesaid.
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Munger.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
and order dated 24.08.2009 passed by learned Sri Neeraj Kishore ,Judicial
Gardanibag P.S. Case No.261 of 1999 , whereby and where under the
offences under Sections 419, 420 , 467 , 468, 471 ,120(B) of the Indian
2. That, the petitioner has never moved before this Hon'ble High
Court or before the learned Sessions Judge , Patna against the impugned
order previously.
Digha Police –Station ,w Hon'ble was deputed at that time to control the
further alleged that four candidates were arrested in the physical test for
in the application form as well as in master chart. And ,all of them could not
give their names clearly and accordingly the First Information Report was
instituted . And , all the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody.
-3-
parental name as well as address wrongly and ultimately after being released
summoned and the petitioner came and enquired about the matter and found
the address and father’s name has been mentioned as same of the petitioner
petitioner ,because the date of birth of this petitioner is 3 rd April, 1966 and
the photograph which has been affixed in the format of the application form
also defers from the photograph of this petitioner ,the documents and the
photographs such as copy of the voter list and Election photo identity card
-4-
application.
has been submitted by procuring the same certificate by the imposter . The
age of this petitioner is so old who could not be eligible for the selection of
not consist the date of birth and when he was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody and after being released on bail, he became traceless and
the petitioner is quite innocent for such type of offence came in picture on
the basis of his name , parental name and address , the real culprit dragged
his false name , parental name and address and consequently his name has
will be apparent from the perusal of the record ,the present petitioner will
be found innocent.
9. That, the impugned order is quite illegal as per the facts and
-5-
GROUNDS:
II. For that , the learned trail court should have examined the
exactly same and in this case ,the imposter deliberately dragged the name of
IV. For that, the mark of identification as well as the Election Photo
Identity Card and Voter List also being attached in this petition and the
-6-
AND/OR
AND
( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY )
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Sri Shiva Kirti Singh , the Hon’ble Acting Chief
and order dated 23rd November , 2009 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey
Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2009/ 07 of 2009 , whereby and where under the
learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the prayer for bail
court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi for the offence Under
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
Report in brief is that the informant gave his written report before the Station
Market but he did not found his Motorcycle where he parked his Motorcycle
-3-
then he enquired and during inquiry he found that one another Motorcycle
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 registered for the
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi being Trial No. 523 of 2009 arising out of
Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.162 of 2009 dated 30.05.2009 registered for the
whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
unknown persons.
-4-
police arrested the petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion and obtained
the signature of the petitioner on a plain paper under coercion and threat ,
not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner rather it was
recovered from the possession of Hira Lal Sah at village- Suhai , P.S.
application.
10. That, it is stated that since the petitioner was juvenile at the
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Sitamarhi ,wherein the learned Juvenile
juvenile .
11. That, on the basis of declaration of Juvenile Justice Board , an
application for bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
-5-
this application.
Appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge , Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal
14. That, the petitioner has got a bright career and further
petitioner.
15. That, the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since
-6-
bail.
before the court as and when required if he is granted bail by this Hon'ble
Court.
19. That, it is stated that the father of the petitioner undertakes that
following
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order is bad in law as
well as on facts.
-7-
II. For that, while rejecting the Criminal appeal the learned
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing has been brought
the eye of law ,unless there is a positive material on record that the
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that no one seen the petitioner
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned
the informant have not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
VII. For that, while dismissing the Criminal Appeal ,the learned
-8-
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
No.162 of 2009.
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
(PETITIONERS IN JAIL )
Criminal Procedure ;
AND
In the matter of :-
Sitamarhi.
……………………PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
-2-
To,
and order dated 05.07.2007 passed by Sri Narsignh Prasad, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.6, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal
Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal
filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment and order dated
no.CI/407 /86 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class has been
pleased to convict the petitioner no.1 Latif Nadaf Under Section 447
of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for one month Under Section
426 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for one month , one year R.I.
for one month for the offence under Sections 324 and 379 of the Indian
Penal Code each and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and one another Md.
-3-
undergo R.I. for one month each for the offence Under Sections 447 and
426 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three months Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
3. That, the prosecution case ,in nut shell, is that the complainant
lodging Sanaha for which the accused persons annoyed with him . It is
starting to uprooted his Tatti fixed in his land various armed with Lathi
and Garasa ,then the complainant protested to them , accused Latif gave a
garasa blow on his head for which he received cut injury on his head and he
inflicted second blow of Garssa but any how ,he saved himself but he
received cut injuries on his hands. It is further alleged that remaining
accused persons assaulted him with Lathi and fists and slap , accused Latif
also took out Rs.200/- from his pocket . It is further alleged that when son
of the complainant namely Subhani Nadaf and wintess Islam Nadaf came
-4-
to save him , accused persons also assaulted them with Lathi ,fists and
slaps .
the petitioners and one another namely Md. Suleman Nadaf on 02.04.1987
and at the time of framing of charges pleased not guilty and claimed to be
tried .
himself , P.W.5 Suryadeo Mishra , P.W.6 Dr. G.K. Jha , who examined the
injured persons i.e. P.W.1 ,2 and 3 and P.W.7 Shivji Prasad, who is a
formal witness .
7. That, it is stated that P.W. 1, 2 and 4 are the interest witnesses
and co-related with each other and their evidence is not trustworthy.
8. That, it is stated that P.W.3 and P.W.5 is also the close friend
between both the parties and the land in question was executed by Kitab Ali
-5-
in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1 namely Dost Mohammad and
the said land came in possession of the petitioners which is evident from the
10. That, it is stated that all the witnesses are interested witnesses
occurrence had taken place at 4 P.M. but according to the evidence of P.W.5
,he reached at the place of occurrence after sunset ,it means that he is not
12. That, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.6, who examined the
injured persons , is also not credible and according to him all the injuries
found on the persons of the injured persons were not only simple but
also.
13. That, it is stated that according to the evidence of P.W.2 , there
14. That, it is stated that the learned Magistrate without taking into
-6-
application.
15. That, it is stated that against the judgment and order dated
Trial No.40 of 1991 ,the petitioners and one another namely Md. Suleman
Judge , Fast Track Court No.6, Sitamarhi , who also dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial
the petitioners in the learned Appellate Court did not inform the petitioners
about the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioners ,therefore, the
petitioners could not get knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal.
17. That, it is stated that when the learned trial court issued
order dated 28.07.2009 , then the petitioners have got knowledge about the
-7-
18. That, it is stated that when the petitioners had come to their
native village , they were arrested by the police and produced before the
judicial custody vide order dated 24.09.2009 in view of the order dated
27.06.1991.
19. That, it is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and material
-8-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
III. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that the land in question
was executed by one Kitab Ali in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1
IV. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
petition the alleged time of occurrence is 4 P.M. ,it means that he is not the
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that P.W.1,2 and 4 are
-9-
the co-related to each other and the P.W.3 and 5 are also the close friend of
the P.W.4 ,it means that all the witnesses are interested witnesses .
VI. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
VII. For that, while convicting the petitioners ,the learned trial
court as well as appellate court failed to appreciate that there is counter case
filed by the wife of the petitioner no.1 against the P.W.1 to P.W.4.
VIII. For that , if the order of the learned trial court as well as
justice.
IX. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law as well as
parties ,call for the records of the learned court below and
-10-
AND/OR
AN D
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
application.
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
Sadar Sitamarhi in Trial No.927of 2003 ,the petitioner and his father
Sitamarhi being Cr. Appeal No.32 of 2003/ 12 of 2009 and during the
person ,therefore, after filing of the present appeal in the year 2003 ,the
petitioner had gone to outside the State for earning his livelihood and the
appeal was not taken up for such a long time and ultimately the appeal was
behalf of the petitioner in the appeal did not inform the petitioner about the
dismissal of appeal and when the petitioner has come to his native village ,
on 27.04.2010.
-3-
the memo of appeal ,the father of the petitioner died ,who was doing the
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
reasons aforesaid.
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
IN
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
-2-
on 14.04.2009 , whereas the revision application has been filed before this
2. That, the petitioner has not filed any application like the
investigation .
was taking the stock of situations and development in the case but when the
Siwan , accepting the final form submitted by the police , the petitioner was
in the midst of Semester of his studies at Delhi and was ,therefore, unable to
come at his native place to take the recourse of law available to him against
came to his native place and had, thereafter taken steps for filing of the
-3-
to approach this Hon'ble court against the impugned order and the delay
reasons aforesaid.
condoned ,the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Muzaffarpur.
……………………PETITIONERS
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order on the point of sentence dated 11.06 .2009 passed by Sri
Shailendra Kumar Pandey , the learned 6 th Additional Sessions
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to
convict the petitioners under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he
has been pleased to accord the sentence for which the petitioners spent in
2. That, the petitioners have not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2009.
Report in brief is that the informant Sanjay Kumar Thakur gave his
namely Kaushal Kishore Thakur was ploughing the land of the informant
upon which the informant went there and protested and after exchange of
hot words , the accused Sanjeet Kumar having armed with Bhala in his
-3-
accused Ramakant Thakur all having armed with Lathi in their hand came
Mandal , Ram Chandra Thakur , Swarath Mandal and Pramod Thakur also
reached there .
The Informant further alleged that in the meantime at about 11
A.M. accused Vidya Sagar Thakur exerted the other accused persons to
finish the informant upon which accused Sanjeet Kumar gave a Bhala blow
on the person of the informant heating at his left of the chest and the
gave a Farsa blow on the scalp of the informant and other accused persons
also assaulted with Lathi and the informant became unconscious and
thereafter brother and father of the informant have brought him at Benibad
Police drew up a formal First Information Report and registered a case being
Code.
-4-
charge-sheet against all the six First Information Report named accused
persons .
learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the accused persons vide
committed to the court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the
five accused persons under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code
where the petitioners and others pleaded not guilty since they have been
falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute and claimed to be tried .
Ramakant Thakur died in the year 2007 ,therefore, only four accused
Chandra Thakur , P.W.3 Amod Kumar, P.W.4 Vijay Kumar (full brother of
the informant ) ,P.W.5 Raj Kumar ( father of the informant ) ,P.W.6 Sanjay
Kumar (informant himself) ,PW.7 Dr. Amarnath Prasad Gupta and P.W.8
-5-
11. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 is a chance witness and in his
he saw that the informant Sanjay was lying on the earth but he did not say
in his evidence neither said that how he chance to be present at the place
13. That, it is stated that P.W.3 in his deposition ,he did not say
exhortation
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.4 , P.W.5 and P.W.6 informant
himself are the interested witnesses and related to each other and their
and firstly his brother was taken to Gaighat Hospital where he regain
conscious after two hours and was examined by the doctor and then he
went to Benibad Out Post . It is pertinent to mention here that as per the
given as 1.45 P.M. but surprisingly the Fardbeyan of the informant was
recorded at 1.00 P.M. , which is the impossible and makes the entire
-6-
16. That, it is stated that the P.W.6 in his evidence said that
his evidence doubted about the prosecution version and also said that there
20. That, it is stated that it is admitted fact that there is land dispute
between both the parties and the land in question is in possession of the
21. That, it is stated that the prosecution party failed to prove his
case except all the reasonable doubts but the learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted the petitioners under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code
-7-
following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the charges has not been framed under Section
III. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the injury report has not been fully proved by
the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubts ,so that there is no question of
conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
IV. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
-8-
court failed to appreciate that as per the injury report, the time of
the P.W.4 admitted that after examination by the doctor ,the Fardbeyan of
VI. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
VII. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
VIII. For that , while convicting the petitioners the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the P.W.8 Investigating Officer of the case
IX. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
-9-
petitioners .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Resident of C.D.A. Colony , Shastri Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Shastri Nagar,
District – Patna.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
Patna in Matrimonial Case No.168 of 2007 , whereby and where under the
learned Principal Judge has been pleased to reject the amendment petition
dated 12.11.2008 filed by the petitioner under Order-6 , Rule-17 read with
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
2007 in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Patna under
Section 13(1) of the marriage act seeking divorce against the Opposite-
party no.2 and declaring the marriage of the petitioner with the Opposite-
-3-
party no.2 be void on the ground that she was cruel , un-
cooperative ,abnormal and was not agreeable with the petitioner even to
share on bed.
A true photo stat copy of the plaint of
4. That ,the case of the petitioner was that his marriage with the
party no.2 came to petitioner’s house but she never accompanied with the
petitioner even share on the bed and she also did not ready to carry the
father-in-law and mother –in-law though they are on the death bed. It is
further said that the petitioner is a young man and his prime youth is
-4-
in private institution .
8. That, it is stated that when the petitioner has got knowledge
below at the time of filing of the suit that the petitioner is a computer
complaint case against the said learned Advocate in the court of learned
12.11.2008 before the learned Principal Judge ,Family Court, Patna under
Order-6 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in paragraph no.4 of the plaint
of the matrimonial case because on the fault on the part of the learned
-5-
10. That, it is stated that in the year 2002 , the petitioner was
letter dated 15.06.2002 purely on the contract basis on the monthly stipend
application.
11. That, it is stated that thereafter the petitioner left the job of
-6-
In this regard a certificate was issued by the Principal of Honey Dew Point
no.4 in the main plaint of matrimonial case , has been pleased to reject the
13. That, it is stated that the learned Principal Judge , Family Court
,Patna passed the impugned order merely on the basis of believing the oral
other following
GROUNDS:
-7-
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner filed the
behalf of the petitioner wrongly placed the fact that the petitioner is a
III. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that if the petitioner is a
Computer Engineer ,then he must have passed the examination from the
recognized University .
IV. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that Opposite-party no.2 in his
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that when the petitioner has got
knowledge that on the fault on the part of the learned Advocate ,the word
case against the said learned Advocate in the court of learned District
VI. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition , the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the petitioner is working
-8-
in a private Institution for maintenance of computer on contract basis from
he only earned a meager amount which is not sufficient for the survival of
VII. For that, while rejecting the amendment petition ,the learned
Principal Judge only believed the oral statement on behalf of the Opposite-
party no.2 and disbelieved the statement of the petitioner which was
VIII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
pleased to
AND/OR
-9-
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
AN D
be stayed.
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
is for condonation of delay in filing of the present criminal revision
application against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the
2002.
unemployed youth and is living his life in frustration after dismissal of the
Divorce Case ,he filed a requisition for obtaining the certified copy on
of instant Cr. Revision application before this Hon'ble Court which took
some time for the petitioner and ,therefore, he could not prefer this revision
money .
application was filed before this Hon'ble Court on 28.07.2009 though the
5. That, after the filing ,the records were returned with defects
that the limitation petition may be filed and the order of the learned Joint
Registrar ( List and Computer) may be obtained for pressing the limitation
petition before the Bench and that Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act
-3-
6. That, because of mistake ,the private clerk of the petitioner’s
Lawyer did not bring to the notice of the petitioner’s lawyer about the return
of the said filing with the aforesaid defects and ,therefore, the steps were not
taken for re-filing of the said Revision application along with the limitation
petition .
about the position of his case on 22.08.2009 and only thereafter this could be
located that the said revision application is yet to be filed with the
application .
petitioner or on the part of the learned Advocate and whole thing has been
10. That, the petitioner has not filed an application like the present
-4-
the delay in filing of the present revision
application .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri P.K. Misra , the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
dated 01.07.2009 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar , the learned Principal Judge,
where under the learned Principal Judge has been pleased to direct the
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
maintenance case is that that her marriage with the petitioner was
wedlock of the petitioner and Opposite-party no.2 a female child was born
-3-
started to torture her and stopped her meal and demanded further dowry but
the Opposite-party no.2 always refused for the same . It is further alleged
ornaments and ousted the Opposite-party no.2 from the house for which the
No.1335 of 2006 and the same was sent to the Riga Police- Station and
accordingly Riga P.S. Case no.55 of 2007 was instituted. The Opposite-party
no.2 further alleged that the petitioner is earning 250/- per day as Carpenter
,he is also running a shop of furniture and he has some ancestral property.
the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi was registered
appeared before the learned Principal Judge and filed his written statement
stating therein that he is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full
-4-
dignity and surety but the Opposite-party no.2 herself left the house of the
of his family and he has the liability of his old parents and two school
marriage of his sister on interest and the family condition of the petitioner is
very poor.
10. That, it is stated that the Opposite-party no.2 wrong to say that
the petitioner has sufficient ancestral property but in fact about one bighas
land in the name of the father of the petitioner in which most of the land are
unfertile .
11. That, it is stated that in fact the Opposite-party no.2 wanted that
the petitioner left his parents and brother but the petitioner did not do
-5-
12. That, the learned Principal Judge vide his impugned order
the petitioner as well as without any proof of the income produced by the
Opposite-party no.2 .
other following
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the Opposite-party no.2 herself left the house of the petitioner and the
petitioner is ready to keep the Opposite-party no.2 with full dignity and
surety .
III. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
Opposite-party no.2 did not produce any evidence about the income as well
-6-
IV. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the petitioner is the only earning member of his family and upon the
petitioner there is liability of his parents and two minor brothers, who are
reading in school.
VI. For that, the learned Principal Judge failed to appreciate that
the petitioner is doing the work of daily wager carpenter on daily wages
basis in his native village and there is no regular income of the petitioner .
VII. For that, the impugned order is otherwise bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
pleased to
set aside the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by
No.17 of 2008.
AND/OR
-7-
AND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Siwan.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
2. Rima Devi, daughter of Shesh Nath Singh and wife of Pramod Kumar
Singh , resident of village- Paltu Hata, P.O. Paltu Hata , P.S. Jamo Bazar
,District –Siwan.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 passed by Sri Satya Prakash Narain
Singh , the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in Divorce Case
No.12 of 2002 , whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has
been pleased to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the petitioner ,seeking
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
the court of learned District Judge , Siwan seeking divorce against the
share on bed.
4. That ,the case of the petitioner was that his marriage with the
the Opposite-party no.2 came to petitioner’s house and had last live with the
Opposite-party no.2 and her father that the petitioner should live at the
-3-
5. That, since the petitioner was not agreeable to the said wishes
house on 25.06.1996 and went to her parental house ,wherefrom she was
torturing the petitioner and other family members through various means.
a false criminal case against the petitioner and other family members in
which she had made false allegation of demand of dowry , assault and
Almost all family members of the petitioner were made accused in the said
case.
party no.2 was not agreeable to compromise the case, the petitioner as also
the family members surrendered before the court and when they remained
for some time behind the bars ,they were released on bail .
8. That, even after relieve from the custody ,though the petitioner
had tried his best and had made all efforts so that the Opposite-party no.2
may come back to her matrimonial house and the marital life of the
party no.2 flatly refused to the pursuation of the petitioner . The well-
-4-
wishers of the locality had also made attempt to solve this problem ,yet the
Opposite-party no.2 was not agreeable to come to her matrimonial house and
and though the petitioner was married but he was living a bachelor life
10. That, since the Opposite-party no.2 was not agreeable to come
to her matrimonial house , the petitioner had no other option but to seek
divorce from the Opposite-party no.2 and had ,therefore, filed the instant
Divorce Case No.12 of 2002 in the court of learned District Judge , Siwan
11. That, on notice ,the Opposite-party no.2 appeared and filed her
show-cause ,denying the allegations made in the divorce petition and had
made allegation against the petitioner and the family members about the
cruelty and had also stated that the petitioner has illicit concern with the
sister of his brother’s wife but no where she had stated in her show-cause
-5-
that she is ready to live with the petitioner and would co-operate him in all
walks of life.
the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since 07.02.2004 and the petitioner had
application.
learned Principal Judge had framed six different issues for determination in
the case and in support of their respective case , the parties were directed to
lead their oral and documentary evidence . On behalf of the petitioner seven
-6-
case filed by the father of the Opposite-party no.2 for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ,the learned Principal Judge vide
his impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 was pleased to dismiss
GROUNDS:
well as on facts.
II. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge did not appreciate the fact that the Opposite-party no.2 in
aggressive and on her instigation her father filed a false case against the
-7-
petitioner and other family members alleging offences under Section 498A
III. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
the said criminal case ,the Opposite-party no.2 should have come to her
matrimonial house and would have lived there with the petitioner which
would have helped him in restoration of her conjugal life but she did not
come to live with the petitioner and was fighting for the money which was
IV. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
criminal case was not intended for the restitution of conjugal life .
month.
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that after the criminal case ended in
house ,however in her evidence in the divorce case, she had complained that
-8-
VI. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
subsequent conduct of petitioner while not paying the said amount to the
case if the parties to the divorce case are not agreeable to live together , the
only way out is their separation through a divorce case and the Opposite-
party no.2 would have been awarded certain amount for her maintenance
after the divorce since a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance from
the husband as the factum of marriage was on admitted fact in the case.
VII. For that, while dismissing the divorce case, the learned
Principal Judge failed to appreciate that if the parties are not agreeable to
live together and the divorce case is dismissed both of them would equally
suffer since they cannot take a decision to marry with other for the
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to
-9-
AND/OR
IN
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
-2-
application ,which is being filed against the judgment dated 02.04.2009 and
knowledge about the limitation period for filing of the criminal revision
application and he is under the impression that the limitation period for
on 06.07.2009.
contacted the lawyer after summer vacation i.e. the last week of June, 2009
part of the petitioner or on the part of his counsel and whole thing has been
application.
AND/OR
-3-
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS
Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 passed by Sri Ram Prakash Choubey , the
learned Assistant District & Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no.3 ,
P.S. Case No.34 of 2005 registered for the offences under Sections
was pleased to acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 from the aforesaid
charges leveled against them on the ground that the prosecution has
and 3.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2009 and order
dated 07.04.2009.
Report in brief is that the informant Raj Kishore Yadav gave his Fardbeyan
-3-
before the S.I. Sri S.K. Singh of Bela Police –Station at 1.30 A.M. at Khaki
stating therein that in the night of 09.09.2005 ,he was sleeping in his house
and he heard on loud sepaker that Binay Mukhiya was shot dead at the said
Math . He rushed to that Math and where many persons assembled there.
He saw that his son Binay Mukhiya was lying at the Math poured with
blood . Priest of said Math Sitaram Das and Sikandar Mandal were weeping
loudly saying that Ram Kishore Rai and others killed Mukhiaji . It is further
said that Sita Ram Das and Sikandar Rai told him that Ram Kishore Rai ,
Ram Pravesh Mahto and Vaidehi Mahto came on red colour motorcycle at
the Math at 9 P.M. and saw Mukhiyaji and went away and said Binay
Bhujia . It is further said that in the mean time five persons armed with
pistol and torch came there and called Mukhiyaji on which Mukhiyaji came
before them and after seeing them ,he returned back but Ram Kishore Rai
fired from his pistol which hit on the arm of Mukhiyaji . It is further said
that Mukhiyaji tried to flee from there but acused Rajiv Kumar fired from
his gun which hit on the cheek and Mukhiyaji fell down after receiving gun
shot injuries. It is further said that accused Ashoka Kumar Rai came near
Mukhiyaji and fired from his gun . Ram Pravesh Mahto and Vaidehi Mahto
also came there and told other persons to remove back on which all the
-4-
accused persons went away by foot. It is further said that on that time one
Petromax and two lantern were lighting in which light they identified the
accused persons . It is further said that motive behind the occurrence is that
also land dispute between them from before. It is further said that
with the investigation and during the course of investigation the police
-5-
against all seven accused persons including the Opposite-party nos. 2 and
3 also under the same Section after going through the material available in
the case-diary .
committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 22.08.2006 for its
disposal and the charges were framed against all the accused persons
Act .
examination.
-6-
was coming from the Math of Khaki Bab towards his house and when he
talking that – “ 15 LAKH RUPAYA LOI APP LOG JAKAR KAM BAN
LENA ,KISI TARAH Section MUKHIYA BUCH NAHI PAYE”. He
further deposed in his deposition that he saw Raj Kishore Rai (Opposite-
Ram Babu Sah , Ashoka, Rajiv , Ram Pravesh and Vaidehi came from the
apparent that the house of Opposite-party no.2 is the meeting of all the
accused persons ,where the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 hatched up the plan
-7-
deposition that prior to 6-7 days of the occurrence the deceased had talked
with the P.W.7 in which the deceased suspected that Opposite-party nos.2
the contestant for the post of Mukhiya in which the deceased defeated the
no.3 ,therefore, there is occasion for the Opposite-party no.3 to hatch up the
15. That, it is stated that the P.W.9 ,the informant had also
supported the version of P.W.7 in his deposition that he was informed by the
witnesses a meeting was organized in the house of Opposite-party no.2 for
nos.2 and 3 are the vital roll and they are main conspirator .
17. That, it is stated that the learned trial court without taking into
said that the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 are the main conspirator and in the
house of Opposite-party no.2 the conspiracy was made for committing the
murder of the deceased , acquitted the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
charges.
-8-
following
GROUNDS:
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3, 7and 9 in their
evidence specifically said that the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 are the main
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the Opposite-party no.3 is the
contestant for the post of Mukhiya in which the Opposite-party no.3 was
-9-
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3, the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that there is
admitted land dispute and political rivalary with the Opposite-party nos. 2
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.3 in his deposition
consistently said that when he was crossing from the house of the Opposite-
party no.2 he heard the talking about the murder of the deceased.
VI. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
VII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
pleased to set
-10-
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONERS
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
dated 27th February, 2009 passed in Cr. Revision No.177 of 2006 by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger in East Colony P.S. Case No.04
of 2006, G .R. No. 214 of 2006 ,whereby and where under the learned
Revisional Court set aside the order dated 04.07.2006 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger and allowed the aforesaid Cr. Rev.
No.177 of 2006.
the case which was lodged by one Assistant Sub-Inspector Prem Nath
Jha ,stating interalia that on 09.02.2006 at about 10.30 A.M. when the
informant was going for investigation with regard to East Colony P.S. Case
No.49 of 2005 along with the Inspector of Police and when they were
returning at
-3-
about 11.45 A.M. they saw a loaded Tractor with boulders as well as two
Tractors also and one Truck reached near the place of occurrence and all
the four vehicles were stopped by the said informant on the order of
Inspector of Police and after being asked the requisite documents then the
Drivers of all vehicles went to bring the documents and thereafter they
managed to flee away. The informant said that all the boulders are the
property of forest and all the vehicles and boulders were seized before the
two witnesses and lodged the case for offence under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Act and
4. That, after lodging the First Information Report ,the case has
well as the Superintendent of Police , Munger supervised the case and it has
been mentioned in the supervision note itself that the aforesaid case is found
to be true under Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Act and other
-4-
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian
Forest Act are not applicable in the case and the same was confirmed by the
scrutinized all the documents with regard to seized boulders as well as the
vehicle in question such as owner book , prepaid challan , tax token etc.
5. That, the petitioners ,who are the owners of the seized vehicles
and materials loaded thereon filed their petitions before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate , Munger for release of their vehicles and on different
dates and the requisite documents of the vehicle as well as the material
Magistrate , Munger itself and thereafter a report was called for from the
Police- Station with its case-diary in respect of this case and according the
very much important to mention here that neither the Investigating Officer of
petitioners and other vehicle owners filed their petitions for release the
vehicle in question
-5-
thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger called for report
to all concerned including the Divisional Forest Officer and thereafter the
6. That, though the case was not found to be true for several
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Munger itself. In this way
case does not comes under the offence punishable under Section
26,41,42,33 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act and the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate rightly and legally released the vehicle provisionally vide order
application.
dated 31.10.2006 for the offences under Section 4/40 of the Bihar Minor
-6-
Minerals Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Munger as per the
owners.
8. That, the revisionist filed the Cr. Rev. No.177 of 2006 against
the order dated 04.07.2006 without any rhyme and reason though it is
demarcation in between the Forest Area and the area of Mines . The learned
not. The Officials of the Forest Department as well as the Police Officer
did not follow the procedure mentioned in Sub- Clause-4 of Section -52 of
the Indian Forest Act ( Bihar Amendment Act 9 of 1990 ) . Apart from this
believe that a forest offence has been committed by the petitioners . In this
way the entire case is fit to be quashed and the order impugned is fit to be set
-7-
aside and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly released the
GROUNDS:
II. For that, the learned Revisional Court did not pass any
Magistrate , Munger and it is cryptic order and the order of learned Chief
III. For that, the learned Revisional Court illegally allowed the
aforesaid revision application and erred in passing his order with regard to
4 of Section -52 has not been fully complied with and it is wrong to say that
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the offence
-8-
where the charge-sheet has not been submitted under Section 26,41,42,33
and 52 of the Indian Forest Act rather the charge-sheet has been submitted
under Section 4/40 of Bihar Minor Minerals Act and for that requisite
below as well as the Police Officer and so far the place of excavation is
concerned ,the Officers of the Forest Department does not able to show as
from where the excavation was made and the place of excavation of the
stone comes under the jurisdiction of Forest Area or not .In this way the
learned Revisional Court illegally set aside the order passed by the learned
proceeding was initiated rather it was apparent on being asked to submit the
following the procedure of said proceeding in accordance with law hence the
entire impugned order is bad in law and on fact and unwarranted in the eye
-9-
AND/OR
AND
stayed.
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
Sitamarhi.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
-2-
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
and order dated 31st March ,2009 passed by Shri Bhim Shankar Lal , the
2003/ 06 of 2004 arising out of Bathnaha P.S. Case No.45 of 1997 for the
offences under Sections 366 ,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code , whereby
and where under the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was pleased to
acquit the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 from the charges leveled against
them under Sections 366 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the point
occurrence .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 31 st March ,
2009.
subsequent it was sent to the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of
-3-
the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Police- Station for institution and
Ramchandra Ram about four years ago . It is further said that after the
marriage , the witness no.1 came to his house and after leaving with husband
and wife . The accused persons are the co-villagers of the informant and
were in visiting term and also made joke with the wife of the informant . It
is further said that after some time the informant became unable to bear
such joke then one day he threatened and ousted but the accused no.2 who
with the wife of the informant . It is further said that on the date of
occurrence when the wife of the informant came out from her house for
natural call then accused no.1 and 2 who were present there according to
their plan taken the bag of the wife of the informant containing
cash ,ornaments and clothes and according to their plan , they had taken
away the wife of the informant and till date she is traceless. It is further
said that on the date of occurrence informant went to his Sasural village –
Bokhara and told everything to his father-in-law then father –in-law of the
-4-
replied that his daughter is living in his house from two days and today his
daughter has gone to Railway Station where he boarded in the train and
thereafter where she had gone he cannot say . It is further said that when
the witness no.1 told this fact to the informant then informant went to the
house of the accused persons and quarried that why you have kept his wife
2 days and not informed him ,it show that you have kept her or killer her. It
is further said that the informant threatened that he is going to file a case
against them then accused persons caught hold the informant and tied in
the pillars and also assaulted with fists and slaps and taken thumb
impression on plain paper and left the informant . It is further said that
thereafter the informant started searching to her wife but he did not find
any information then on 06.09.1997 the informant had given written report
to the Police Station but the Police did not take any action then the informant
with the investigation and during the course of investigation the police
Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal
Code .
-5-
Sri D.N.Singh , the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sitamarhi for its
disposal and the charges were framed against the Opposite-party nos. 2 and
-6-
11. That, it is admitted fact that the wife of the informant namely
evidence before the court that they saw the wife of the informant (victim )
with the accused persons during the course of taking away the victim .
between the date and time of occurrence since the date of occurrence was 11
years old .
14. That, it is stated that it is admitted fact that the accused persons
are the co-villager of the informant and the accused persons were visiting
term with the wife of the informant (victim ) ,therefore, the witnesses did
not protest them ,since they had no knowledge about the conspiracy hatched
-7-
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03..2009
II. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution witnesses
have said in his deposition that they saw the victim (wife of the informant )
III. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that till the date the victim is
traceless and lastly the victim was seen with the accused persons, which is
IV. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and , the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that it is admitted fact that the
accused persons are the co-villager and visiting term with the wife of the
informant (victim ) .
regarding the date of the occurrence in the deposition of the witnesses ,it is
obvious that there is some differences since prosecution witnesses are the
VI. For that , while acquitting the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 , the
learned trial court ought to have considered that regarding the time and
-8-
place of occurrence , it is obvious that the prosecution witnesses had seen
the victim with the accused persons at the different time and different places
VII. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 from the
VIII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
IX. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
-2-
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
and order dated 10th February ,2009 passed by Shri Pradip Kumar Neogy ,
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.1,
out of Sheohar P.S. Case No.73 of 2006 dated 14.06.2006 registered for the
whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
against them under Sections 285, 436 and 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code
in absence of evidence.
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th
-3-
February , 2009.
the evening hen he was returned at his village- Madhopur Anant and after
that he went to the house of Shiv Shankar Thakur for sleeping on the upper
floor of the said house at 11.00 P.M. It is further said that accused Ram
their hands and they sprinkled petrol to his house . It is further said that
Mahashankar Thakur and Ram Ayodhya Thakur set fire from westerh
south corner through match box . It is further said that Shyam Shankar
him and tired to throw in the said fire burning house and in the mean time
persons of the locality assembled there and save the life of the informant . It
is further said that due to fire all the articles lying in his house was burnt
and converted into ashes . It is further said that the occurrence was
witnessed by the persons of the locality . The motive behind the occurrence
is that there was a land dispute in between the accused persons and the
informant and a case is going on between both the parties in the Civil Court,
Sitamarhi and accused persons tried to dispossess him from the said land.
-4-
the police arrived at the place of occurrence and the police seized half burnt
bamboo and some ashes and prepared a seizure list in presence of two
at 1 P.M.
Penal Code .
committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal and the charges were
framed against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 under Section 285, 436 and
-5-
Ext.1/1 :Fardbeyan
12. That, it is admitted fact by the both the parties that there is land
said that he saw from the roof of Shiv Shankar Thakur, where he was
sleeping that the accused persons was setting fire in his house by sprinkling
petrol.
14. That, it is stated that the P.W.5 Investigating Officer of the case
in his deposition admitted that after the occurrence he went to the place of
occurrence and seized the half burnt bamboo and ashes from the place of
-6
following
GROUNDS:
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the informant P.W.4 of the case
specifically admitted in his deposition that he saw from the roof that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the P.W.5 Investigating Officer
of the case admitted in his deposition that after the occurrence he went to the
place of occurrence and seized half built bamboo and ashes from the place
-7-
on ,therefore, there was occasion for the accused persons to set fire in the
between the statement of the P.W.1 , P.W.2 and P.W.4 , it is natural for
some differences in between their statement since the P.W.1 ,P.W.2 saw
the occurrence inside the house whereas P.W.4 saw the occurrence from the
roof .
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the independent witness P.W.3
also admitted in his deposition that after hulla ,he went at the place of
condition ,where the informant said that the accused persons have come and
aspects of the case and discharge the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 8 from the
VIII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
-8-
IX. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships
(PETITIONER IN JAIL)
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS.
To,
-2-
and order dated 24th March, 2009 passed by learned Sri Madhusudan Singh
arising out of order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Munger in G.R. Case No.1163A /2008 , Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.58
of 2008 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge ,Munger
Report ,in brief, is that the informant Hari Nandan Prasad Singh gave his
P.M. , when the informant along with his brother , nephew and mother of
nephew were coming by spreading fertilizer then in the way near the BASA
hiding themselves , all of them apprehended and surrounded and caught the
-3-
brother and nephew of the informant and one accused Vidyanand ordered to
kill him upon which Jairam , Sadanand shot fire on the temple of Rohit
Singh ,brother of the informant and thereafter Arbind and Jarbind opened
fire by putting pistol on the chest and jaw upon the nephew of the informant
Lalan Singh . It is further alleged that after raising alarm some accused
informant and thereafter some persons assaulted there. The cause behind
the occurrence is some piece of land measuring 8 Kathas for which some
land litigation is going on and after being hold Panchayati the accused
persons namely Jai Ram Singh did not ready to pacify the matter.
Hari Nandan Prasad Singh , the instant case was lodged bearing Bariyarpur
P.S. Case No.58 of 2008 dated 18.07.2008 for offences under Sections
147,148,149,341, 323, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
5. That, the petitioner is minor boy and the Medical Board has
opined his age in between 16 to 17 years and exactly the Board has
-4-
assessed the age of the petitioner as 16 years 7 months and 9 days on the
there is no any specific overtact has been attributed to this petitioner ,rather
some persons such as petitioner , Mantu , Bhusan and Arun assaulted the
application.
6. That, having seen the injury report of Bhogendra Singh @
Bhogi ,the doctor did not find any injury on the portion of Bhogendra
Singh and also two simple injury such as swelling on left fore arm was
found on the portion of Sheela Devi and there are four accused persons
having armed with Lathi assaulted both the so-called injured persons and
the report falsify the prosecution case entirely . Apart from this the injured
at 3 P.M. but the doctor has mentioned in the injury report the period of
injury is only six hours. The informant with a view to harass the family of
-5-
the petitioner tagged the name of each and every member of his family
application.
informant with ulterior motive because there is land dispute between the
parties and the occurrence took place some other manner but the entire
family member of the petitioner have been made accused in this case.
8. That, apart from this the injured namely Sheela Devi is not the
eye witness rather she is working in her filed and after finishing the
found the deceased as dead . Apart from this almost all paragraphs of the
major has been granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 49480 of 2008 on 05.02.2009
-6-
10. That it is very much important to mention here that the entire
case is false and fabricated and after thought because the date of occurrence
police on the same day i.e. 17.07.2008 at 5 P.M. but the First Information
Report was lodged on next date i.e. 18.07.2008 at 4 P.M. . In this way ,
the information was given by the informant is after thought and with a
planned manner , the petitioner as well as his family member have been
made accused and the First Information Report was lodged belatedly .
forwarded him to Juvenile Justice Board and he was sent in remand home
12. That, the petitioner has no criminal history and the mother of
released on bail.
-7-
other following
G R O U N D S:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned court below failed to appreciate that the
III. For that, the learned court below did not consider the period
IV. For that, the learned court below should have considered and
-8-
the entirety of the case as well as allegation part of the First Information
Report .
Bhogi Singh as well as Sheela Devi and infirmity of time period of injury
Singh have not been considered by the learned court below ,it is quite
VI. For that, the learned court below merely on the basis of
presumption that after being released from custody the petitioner can come
VIII. For that, the mother of the petitioner is ready to take every
IX. For that, the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts
-9-
2000;
AND
In the matter of :-
VERSUS.
To,
-2-
dated 28th March, 2008 passed by learned Sri Pandey Anil Kumar , the
learned Additional Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court no. IV , Munger in Cr.
Appeal No.06 of 2008 , whereby and where under the aforesaid appeal was
dismissed and confirmed the order dated 29.12.2007 passed by learned Sri
No.483 A//2007 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 by which
the learned Principal Magistrate rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner
Act, 2000.
2. That, the petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon'ble High
Court in Cr. Rev. No.453 of 2008 against the impugned order ,which was
observing at this stage and thereafter the petitioner has not moved before
-3-
this application.
of one Pramod Kumar , Kowali P.S. Case No.105 of 2007 dated 30.03.2007
was registered under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the
the son of the informant namely Prashant Kumar aged about-11 years had
gone to school and had not returned back. In course of search the elder son
of the informant was informed by the petitioner that two unknown persons
took away his brother on a Motorcycle . Later on, at about 2.30 P.M. a
demand of Rs.50,000/- was made on telephone and it was gathered that the
voice was of the petitioner . It has further been alleged that when the
informant tried to ascertain the matter through his own sources then the
informant came to know that it was the petitioner , who was kidnapped his
application.
-4-
and others about the kidnapping of his son namely Prashant Kumar merely
personally informed about his brother, who was being carried by two
the petitioner was dragged in the First Information Report and accordingly
the aforesaid First Information Report was lodged for offence under
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code . The occurrence took place on
30.03.2007 as per the case-diary , the witness, who were the Chaukidar
namely Rajan Paswan as well as Prasidh Paswan by which the dead body
having recorded the dead body of the deceased corroborate the complicity
mention here that the confessional statement before the petitioner has no
legs in the
-5-
eye of law. Apart from this the same was not recorded as per Rules of Bihar
Police Manual.
signature on a plain paper and the same was converted into a confessional
statement .
Kumar who throttled the deceased and all other accused persons have
assumed to be true. Not even only the petitioner is not the instrumental in
the way of kidnapping of the deceased because the son of the informant
himself said that Utsav informed him about the kidnapping of his brother but
merely on the basis of suspicion the name of the petitioner has been tagged
other co-accused Kaushal Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Ravi @ Guddu are
already on bail. The co-accused Rocky Sharma has also been granted bail
-6-
9. That, the petitioner after his arrest moved his application for
Justice Board, Munger ,who by his order dated 24.12.2007 in G.R. Case
10. That, thereafter the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated
before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge , F.T.C. –IV, Munger
and Sri Pandey Anil Kumar by his judgment and order dated 28 th of
March,2008 was pleased to reject the same on the ground of appeal is devoid
of merit.
of nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless it shown that
-7-
there appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to
bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral
12. That, the parents of the petitioner are ready to keep the
Hon'ble court for the well being of the petitioner as well as the release of
the petitioner will not bring him under the influence of any bad element or
go into the association with any known criminal. The petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and as such his release cannot be termed that he will go
learned Magistrate
-8-
other following
G R O U N D S:
well as on facts.
II. For that, the learned appellate court without being scrutinized
the order passed by the learned court below passed the judgment in cryptic
manner.
III. For that, the learned appellate court should have distinguished
the case of this petitioner on the point of juvenile as per the order passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board but the learned Appellate Court failed to
appreciate the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children) Act,2000.
IV. For that, the learned court below failed to consider the
V. For that, the learned court below did not take into
presumed to be true then it is a case of first offender but the learned court
-9-
below did not appreciate the aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal
VI. For that, the learned court below without being deferred and
given any reason dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial mind.
VII. For that, both the judgment and order impugned is bad in law
-10-
A ND / O R
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
judgment and order dated 17.02. 2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.53 of 2006
sentence dated 06.07.2006 was dismissed and affirmed the judgment and
Dumra P.S.Case No.80 of 2001 by which the learned Magistrate found the
petitioner guilty under Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two years U/S 304(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and also sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months under
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentence will run
concurrently.
3. That, the prosecution case ,in brief, is that the informant Sheo
Shankar Sah P.W. 6 gave his Fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Dumra
therein that the informant and his family members had gone to his Sasusral
-3-
namely Anjali Kumari aged about 10 years was going to the market by road
in the mean time one bus bearing Reg. No.7374 (Sundar Bharat ) of Kumar
Travels Company was driven by negligently and rashly and dashed his
villagers assembled there and local persons said that the bus was driven by
registered a case bearing Dumra P.S. Case No.80 of 2001 dated 22.05.201
for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code .
29.08.2001 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 279 and 304(A)
of the Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-4-
10. That, it is stated that only P.W.1 ,P.W.2 , P.W.3 and P.W.6
supported the prosecution version. The P.W.1 , P.W.5 and P.W.6 are close
11. That, it is stated that in his Fardbeyan ,the informant P.W.6 did
not claim that he identified the petitioner as a Driver of the said Bus ,who
driving the said bus rather he only said about the identification of the
the P.W.6 admitted that the petitioner was not put on Test Identification
-5-
13. That ,it is stated that the prosecution did not examine the owner
of the bus in question for the purposes that on the date of occurrence the
15. That, it is stated during the course of trail the doctor ,who
conducted the autopsy of the deceased and the Investigating Officer of the
16. That, it is stated that the said bus ,from which the occurrence
had taken place , was not examined by the District Transport Officer.
17. That, it is stated that neither the petitioner was arrested at the
sport nor the bus was caught hold ,therefore, there was no occasion by the
of the witnesses and the witnesses including the informant has not
dated 06 .07.2006 in Trial No.290 of 2006 whereby and where under the
learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty under Section 279 and
304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two
-6-
years U/S 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to
undergo S.I. for six months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code
and order dated 06.07.2006 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
2006 /11 of 2008 ,who also without going through the material available
on record affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Sub-
appear before the learned trial court within a month from the receipt of the
order .
22. That, after passing the judgment and order dated 17.02.2009 ,
the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and
18.03.2009 ,therefore, the petitioner has not come before this Hon'ble Court
as early.
-7-
and order passed by the learned trial court as well as appellate court is fit to
be set aside .
24. That, it is stated that during the course of trial as well as during
the pendency of the appeal ,the petitioner was all along on bail.
GR OUNDS:
I. For that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned
trail court as well as appellate court are bad in law as well as on facts.
-8-
II. For that, the learned trial court has failed to consider the
completely .
III. For that, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner
IV. For that, the learned trial court has committed error of law and
V. For that, the judgment and order of the learned trial court have
taken into consideration by the learned trial court and in that view of the
matter, the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law .
VII. For that, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all
bad .
VIII. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the Investigating Officer of the case as well as
the doctor ,who conducted the autopsy of the deceased were not examined
the case .
-9-
IX. For that, while convicting the petitioner ,the learned trial
examination that the petitioner was not put on Test Identification Parade
during the course of investigation since the petitioner was not arrested on
the spot .
court failed to appreciate that in the Fardbeyan the informant said about the
XI. For that, while convicting the petitioner , the learned trial
failed to consider that during the course of trial the prosecution did not
XII. For that, while affirming the order passed by the learned trial
court, the appellate court failed to appreciate that in the trial court judgment
XIII. For that, the learned trial court as well as appellate court ought
XIV. For that, the impugned judgment and order of the learned
trial court as well as appellate court is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
-10-
appeal ,issue notice to the Opposite-party ,call for
A N D /O R
AND
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
The Hon’ble Shri J.B. Koshy, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
-2-
and order dated 28.01.2009 passed by Sri Shiv Kumar Jha , the learned
of 2002/ Trial No.1822 of 2009, whereby and where under the learned
from the charges leveled against them under Sections 341 and 392 of the
Indian Penal Code in absence of evidence and taking the benefit of doubt .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2009
passed by the learned trial court however he has moved before the learned
28.01.2009 by filing Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2009 but the same was permitted
to be withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2009 since the appeal is not
maintainable .
-3-
4. That, the prosecution case ,in short , brief is that the petitioner
had gone to Sitamarhi along with his wife for treatment of his wife from
the doctor. The wife of the petitioner was checked up by the doctor and the
doctor advised for examination of blood and X- Ray and accordingly the
wife of the petitioner gave his blood and X-Ray was done . It is further said
that the petitioner sent his wife for the house and the petitioner stayed in
Sitamarhi for taking the report of blood and X-Ray . It is further said that
the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.2000/- from the State Bank and the said
amount keep with him but due to non-availability of the doctor , the
surround the petitioner and snatched Rs.1800/- from the pocket of the
petitioner ,if he will raise alarm then he will be killed in the meantime the
witnesses came at the place of occurrence then the accused persons fled
away with the money. It is further said that after returning to his house, the
petitioner had gone to the Police – Station for lodging the case but the
police refused to register the case and accordingly the complaint case was
-4-
Bhagat under Section 341 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code vide order
dated 16.09.2002.
Judicial Magistrate issued summon against the accused persons for their
appearance .
Ramashish Bhagat was dropped and the case was proceeded against the
prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case and though they were
cross examined at length by the defense but they could not get any
-5-
complaint petition .
between the parties . The said document shows that there is a dispute
between the parties ,therefore, it was occasion for the Opposite-party nos. 2
10. That, it is stated that the P.W.1 and P.W.3 in their evidence
specifically said that they saw the Opposite-party nos. 2 and 3 snatching the
the complaint petition specifically said that he had gone Sitamarhi for
treatment of his wife and in the same evening during the course of returning
the accused persons snatched his money on the point of Chhura and Danda.
-6-
GROUNDS:
II. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3 ,the
learned trial court ought to have considered that the petitioner did not
specifically said in the complaint petition that after check up of his by the
doctor he returned to his house in the evening of same day and in the way
III. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3, the
learned trial court ought to have considered that the prosecution failed to
examine the wife of the petitioner ,since the wife of the petitioner is not the
evidence.
IV. For that, while acquitting the Opposite-party nos.2 and 3,the
specifically said in his evidence that they have seen the accused persons
snatching the money from the pocket of petitioner since the money was kept
-7-
learned trial court ought to have considered that the prosecution has
failed to produce the medical report of his wife ,since for proving the
prosecution case ,the medical report of his wife is not necessary ,therefore,
VI. For that , the learned trial failed to consider the material
aspects of the case and taking the benefit of doubt discharge the Opposite-
VII. For that, the learned trial court failed to consider that all the
VIII. For that, the impugned judgment and order is otherwise bad in
law .
It is ,therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordships may
-8-
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar.
4. Izhar Khan,
-2-
District – Darbhanga.
……………….…………OPPOSITE -PARTIES.
To,
and order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Pathak , the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge , Fast Track Court No.4 ,
Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.220 of 2000 , whereby and where under the
Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code but by the same judgment and order the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to observe that the prosecution has
not been able to prove the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and due to non- examination of the doctor charge under Section 324
Indian Penal Code has also not been proved . The learned Additional
Sessions Judge heard the parties on sentence and had chosen not to sentence
-3-
however they were released from custody giving them benefit of Section 3
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and order passed by the
against the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 and one other for the offences under
Sections 341, 323,324 , 427, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and pursuant
cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 427,504 and 307 of the
Indian Penal Code was taken and the Opposite-party nos. 2 to 5 were put on
trial.
altogether nine witnesses and all of them had supported the prosecution case.
-4-
Phool Babu Khan , P.W.3 Ladle Khan, P.W.5 Md. Sabbir, P.W.6 Lalo Khan
were named in the Fardbeyan as a witness , who had seen the occurrence
prosecution had fully supported the prosecution case and though they were
cross examined at length by the defense but they could not get any
exhibits were also filed and Exhibit -3 was the injury report of the informant
following Injuries :-
doctor ,who had issued the injury report could not be examined by the
prosecution.
-5-
Prosecutor ,the Investigating Officer also could not produce for his
12. That, though the Injury report was on record as Exhibit “3”
without any objection to the defense, yet only because the doctor was not
Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code , though according to the
hard and blunt substance and incised wound at the middle of the head.
the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code but
they were released from the custody under Section 3 of the Probation of
habitual offenders and they have already availed the benefits of Section 3
of the Probation of Offender Act , yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge
-6-
GROUNDS:
appreciate that the benefit could be extended only and only if there is no
party nos. 2,3 and 4 , they were earlier also convicted in Trial No. 333 of
2004 and they have already availed the fruits of Section 360 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
-7-
IV. For that, while passing the impugned judgment and order , the
of doctor ,the accused persons cannot be discharged for the offence under
law .
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
( PETITIONER IN CUSTODY )
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Champaran at Motihari.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 15th January , 2009 passed by the learned 5 th Additional
reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Trial No.1222
Muzaffarpur for the offence Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble High
in the evening , he reached near Ram Nagar Chauri at NH-77 , where three
miscreants stopped him at the point of Revolver and hit with the BUTT of
the revolver on his head and fired upon the informant but luckily the
informant was escaped . It is further alleged that all the accused persons
-3-
alleged that some important papers were also there in the Dickky of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur being Trial No. 1222 of 2008 arising
out of Riga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2007 dated 28.01.2007 for the offences
Report although the First Information Report was registered against three
unknown persons.
-4-
Information Report that he will identify the miscreants after seeing them but
case .
10. That, it is stated that during the course of investigation, the
name of the petitioner has come in the present case only on the basis of
mere suspicion .
said that all the accused persons are aged about 20-25 years and in the
medical examination , the age of the petitioner was assessed by the medical
board as about -17 years ,it means that the petitioner is not involved in
12. That, it is stated that the offence under Section 394 of the
merely on the basis of suspicion and since then the petitioner is behind the
14. That, it is stated that since the petitioner was juvenile at the
the Court Juvenile Justice Board ,Muzaffarpur ,wherein the learned Juvenile
juvenile .
-5-
application for bail was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned
Juvenile Justice Board ,which was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice
18. That, the petitioner has got a bright career and further
petitioner.
following
-6-
GROUNDS:
III. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal ,the learned 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that nothing has been brought
the eye of law ,unless there is a positive material on record that the
Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that no one seen the petitioner
VI. For that, while dismissing the criminal appeal , the learned 5 th
-7-
connection
AND/OR
Criminal Procedure;
AND
In the matter of :-
Munger.
……………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
To,
-2-
and order dated 12th December, 2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No.140 of 2007
Court No.1, Munger arising out of judgment and order of conviction passed
of 2006 , whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge ,
Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 25(1-B)A of the Arms Act and further
simple imprisonment for three months and all the sentences shall run
Criminal Procedure .
-3-
2. That, the petitioner has not moved before this Hon’ble High
Court earlier against the impugned judgment and orders passed by the
Station –Diary entry along with Police Official and when he reached near
Shivkund ,two persons started to escape and with the help of Chaukidar as
well as Driver , they were chased and lastly arrested and after being
searched a country made pistol , one live cartridges and five empty
cartridges have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner and
details of the recovered article has been mentioned in the First Information
Report and after being asked the requisite documents ,he is quite unable to
produce the same and the possession of the illegal arms was well known to
the other accused namely Subodh Mahto and lastly they were arrested and
-4-
Officer ,the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Munger took cognizance for
10.01.2007 and the case was transferred to the court of the learned Sub-
were framed of the aforesaid Sections of the Arms Act and explained in
Hindi before them and they denied about the offence and claimed to be
tried. Later on trial of the another accused Subodh Kumar was separated
vide order dated 30.10.2007 and denial of the accusation during the
Dafadar are the seizure list wintesses , P.W.3 Vishwanath Prasad Officer-in-
Thakur Sergeant ,who conducted the test of seized arms , P.W.5 who is also
the driver of Police Jeep and P.W.6 the Investigating Officer of this case.
The docments such as seizure list ,seized articles such as the country made
pistol as well as five empty cartridges and one live cartridges have been
itself.
Magistrate , Munger ) before whom the witnesses were produced and the
learned trial court did not examine the evidences come during the course
-5-
of trial meticulously . First of all, it is very much important to mention here
that the P.W.3 informant having received the secret information at 9 A.M.
and arranged the raiding party in which P.W.1 Chaukidar , P.W.2 Dafadar
and P.W.5 Driver and proceeded towards the place of occurrence which is
about 8 K.M. far away and it will take time minimum one hour and in the
testimony , P.W.3 deposed that the petitioner was arrested at 9 A.M. in his
that no one was present at the place of occurrence at the time of seizure of
the arms and ammunitions . On the contrary the P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed
that there is a tea stall adjacent to the place of occurrence as well as 5-6
persons were present at the time . In this way the informant P.W3 did not
prepare the seizure list in the presence of the independent witnesses of the
locality rather P.W.1 and P.W.2 ,who are the Chaukidar and Dafadar have
been made as seizure list witnesses and without taking into consideration
the provisions of search and seizure mentioned in Section 100 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure itself the learned trial court passed the judgment
illegally as well as learned lower appellate court has also erred in passing
7. That, the P.W.4 Sergeant Major examined the seized arms and
cartridges and in paragraph no.8 of his testimony ,it is said that the seized
pistol cannot be utilized by loading 315 cartridge and the live cartridges
-6-
which was seized is of 315 . Meaning thereby the Police Officials including
the informant P.W.3 planted the instant case by producing the arms and
this case is the In-charge of Malkhana, it has come in the testimony of P.W.6
itself. Not even only the P.W.6 deposed in paragraph no.29 of the
testimony that as per the direction of the Officer-in-Charge P.W.3 , the case-
diary has been written. The learned trial court has also misconceived to
no.24 and paragraph no.18 in which it has come that the seized article was
the police officials comes under the ambit of doubt but the learned trial
court as well as the learned lower appellate court did not examine and pass
8. That, so far the number of cartridges which was seized from the
P.W.2 . All of them gave contradictory statement with regard to the number
of cartridges . In this regard, the learned trial court simply said that due to
illiteracy of the P.Ws. they deposed before the court contradictorily but it is
very much prejudice to the case of the defense and the benefit of doubt
goes on the part of the petitioner and it creates a serious doubt about the
falsely implication of the petitioner but the learned trial court erred in
-7-
passing his judgment and the learned lower appellate court did not take
9. That, the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate with
even only the Investigating Officer P.W.6 did not mention the prosecution
case and the seizure list as well as no dates of collecting material of the
testimony . The P.W.6 did not give description about the seized pistol and
sent it to the Sergeant Major . It came also in the ambit of doubt and after
being taken the case in totality it seems to be false and planted case but the
learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate court both erred in
witness rather all the witnesses are interest and related to each other because
all the witnesses are police officials but the learned trial court as well as the
learned lower appellate court did not take into consideration and pass the
judgment of conviction.
11. That, the petitioner has already been suffered during the period
-8-
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
GROUNDS:
I. For that, the learned trial court as well as the learned lower
appellate court did not appreciate about the time of occurrence as well as
arresting of the petitioner and also misconceived the lodge of the First
II. For that, the learned trial court as well as the learned lower
appellate court did not take into consideration about the contradictory
Outpost ,who is the informant did not fulfill the criteria of search and
learned trial court erred in passing the judgment and the learned lower
appellate court confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court
IV. For that, the P.W.6 gave description of the place of occurrence
that the tea stall is just adjacent to the place of occurrence and P.W.1 and 2
have also deposed that some persons were present there at the time of search
and seizure but no independent witnesses has either been examined or made
seizure list witnesses but the learned trial court failed to appreciate in this
appellate court both erred in passing the judgment without taking into
above goes to prove the false accusation as well as planted case , the learned
VI. For that, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court as well as the learned appellate court is quite illegal in the eye of law
the opposite-party ,call for the records of the learned trial court
-10-
and after hearing the parties be further pleased to set aside the
AND/OR
Pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit
AND
VERSUS.
SUBJECT:- Revision
I N D E X.
Sl. PARTICULARS PAGE
No. NOS.
01. An application under Sections 397 and 401 1 to 8
of the Code of Criminal Procedure with
affidavit
-8-
A F F I D A V I T.
To,
The Advocate General,
High Court, Patna.
VERSUS.
Sir,
Please take notice that a copy of an application under Sections
397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with affidavit and annexure
along with order is being filed today on behalf of the petitioner . A copy
of which is being served on you for your use. Please acknowledge the
receipt of the same.
Yours Faithfully
ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER.