High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Harendra Raut vs State Of Bihar on 23 February, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Harendra Raut vs State Of Bihar on 23 February, 2011
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Cr.Misc. No.4358 of 2010
                                 HARENDRA RAUT
                                          Versus
                                  STATE OF BIHAR
                                        -----------

3. 23.2.2011 Perused the letter no. 940 dated 29th of December,

2010 submitted by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, West

Champaran, Bettiah in connection with the Court’s order No. 2

dated 5.5.2010 by which a direction was issued to the

Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah for taking

proper steps for production of the two police Officers, namely,

S.I. Ramanugrah Singh and S.I. Lakhichand Ram, who had

investigated Nautan P. S.Case No. 50 of 2005, before the trial

court for evidence. The report of the learned trial Judge indicates

that after communication of the order of this Court to the

Superintendent of Police, West Chaamparan, Bettiah, he had

issued a direction requesting his counterpart of Saran at Chapra

as also the Police Special Branch, Patna but the above named

officers have not appeared for their evidence in the court below.

The helplessness of the trial Judge appears from this fact also

that the learned trial Judge has also issued letter no. 832 dated

26.11.2010 to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna for

proper actions on account of non-attendance of the two

witnesses for giving evidence.

Let notices go to Superintendent of Police, Saran

at Chapra as also the In-Charge Police Special Branch, Patna as

to show cause as to why they have ignored attendance of court’s
2

proceedings by not ensuring production of S.I. Ramanugrah

Singh and S.I. Lakhichand Ram who are posted under their

respective jurisdictions for their evidence in Sessions Trial NO.

21 of 2005 arising out of Nautan P.S.Case No. 50 of 2005 and

why this Court should not treat it as an act of disobedience of the

orders of this Court and initiate a contempt proceeding against

them.

Rule is made returnable in three weeks’ time.

Let a report be also sent for from the learned

Judge who could be seized with the trial of the above noted case

as to whether the above witnesses turned up for their evidence.

The petition be listed on receipt of the report and

the report of service of notices.

Kanth                                        ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)