Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1542 (PAT)

Ram Yash Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-19

MADHAVENDRA SARAN, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ram Suresh Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to learned G.P. 1 for the State and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and rejoinder thereto. 2. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to recover/disclose the whereabout of his son Alok Sharma who was arrested by Patna District Police in association with Bhadrak (Orissa) Police on 3.4.2007 from the house of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner was arrested by Patna Police in association with Bhadrak (Orissa) Police on 3.4.2007 but he was neither produced in court in Patna nor before the Magistrate in Orissa in connection with Bhadrak case. It is further submitted that this fact would be manifest from the media reports that his son was arrested and was taken to some unknown place by the police. Learned counsel, in this view of the matter, tried to impress upon the court that the arrest of the son of the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction as till date he has not been produced before the court either at Patna or Bhadarak (Orissa) and thus it appears to be a case of fake encounter. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that the son of the petitioner was never arrested on 3.4.2007 either in connection with Bhadarak (Orissa) case or in connection with any case in the State of Bihar. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the son of the petitioner is an absconding gangster and he is wanted in several criminal cases of serious nature. Some of the cases pending against the son of the petitioner have been catalogued in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. Besides this, it is also stated that he is also accused in connection with murder of a noted businessman namely Kamal Jain of Kolkata and also an accused in Bhadarak (Orissa) case. Some of the cases pending against the son of the petitioner have been catalogued in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. Besides this, it is also stated that he is also accused in connection with murder of a noted businessman namely Kamal Jain of Kolkata and also an accused in Bhadarak (Orissa) case. From paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it appears that the son of the petitioner is an accused in (i) Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 776 of 2005 dated 26.9.2005 under sections 324, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, (ii) Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 709 of 2005 dated 13.9.2005 under sections 324, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (iii) Shashtrinagar P.S. Case No. 221 of 2006 dated 1.3.2006 under sections 302, 307, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, (iv) Shashtrinagar RS. Case No. 671 of 2006 dated 29.7.2006 under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, (v) Shashtrinagar P.S. Case No. 965 of 2006 dated 30.10.2006 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and (vi) Begusarai P.S. Case No. 199 of 2006 dated 20.7.2006 under sections 326, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. In the counter affidavit, son of the petitioner has been described as gangster as he was involved in gang war and was involved in several cases of serious nature. At the same time, there is denial of arrest of the son of the petitioner on 3.4.2007. 6. In no manner, however, the petitioner has established that his son was arrested by the Patna Police in any of the cases as referred to above. 7. On repeated asking learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has lodged any criminal case against the police or a complaint case before the learned Magistrate either for alleged kidnapping of his son or for fake encounter, reply came in negative. At the same time, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out any substantive case against the police necessitating this court to issue any direction to the police or the authorities to investigate the matter. 8. At the same time, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out any substantive case against the police necessitating this court to issue any direction to the police or the authorities to investigate the matter. 8. Since no case has been lodged by the petitioner, in our considered view, no direction can be issued for any investigation or enquiry. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this writ application. 10. It is, accordingly, dismissed.