Ram Bachan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2011

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        CR.MISC. NO.36772 OF 2008
    1. RAM BACHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE SHOBHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    2. AMRENDRA NARAYAN SAO, SON OF SHRI NAND LAL SAW, RESIDENT
       OF VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    3. RAM SWAROOP SAW, SON OF LATE MANYU SAO, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KHALILPURA, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    4. SHYAM LAL SAO SON OF LATE DANNU SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
       KHALILPURA, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    5. RAM LAL SAO, SON OF LATE DANNU SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
       KHALILPURA, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    6. RAMESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SHRI HIRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    7. RAM PRASAD SAO, SON OF LATE MANYU SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
       KHALILPURA, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    8. DINESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE SHOBHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    9. KAMLESH KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE SHOBHAN SINGH, RESIDENT
       OF VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    10.     VIRENDRA SAO, SON OF SHRI NAND LAL SAO, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    11.     RAJU KUMAR, SON OF VIRENDRA SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
       KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    12.     RAKESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE SURENDRA SAO, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    13.     SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF VIRENDRA SAO, RESIDENT OF
       VILLAGE KOHRAUL, POLICE STATION KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL
    ....................................................................................PETITIONERS
                                 VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                  *******

2 19/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the

A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order

taking cognizance. The petitioners have challenged the

order taking cognizance by filing Criminal Revision No.

29 of 2008/01 of 2008. The revisional Court after hearing

the parties has passed a detailed order remanding the
2

matter back for further enquiry.

I find no illegality in the order impugned. This

application is accordingly dismissed.

Anand                                       ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )