IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6542 of 2005
Suresh Singh , Son of Late Anesh Singh, resident of village
Baluahi, P.s. Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram
.... Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA 9
3 20.10.2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
State.
Petitioner seeks quashing of dated
22.6.99/28.6.99 passed by the District Magistrate,
Rohtas in Arms Case No. 35 of 1996 as well as
appellate order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the
Commissioner, Patna Division in Case No. 103/1999
as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively.
Learned counsel submits that his license
has been cancelled only on the ground of suspicion
that he has not utilised the same while the dacoits
had attacked the house of co-villager Vijay Singh.
Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards
paragraph 3 of the appellate order. It is claimed that
2
petitioner had fired from his rifle when the dacoity
was being committed and upon that dacoits had
escaped. It is also urged that since there is old
enmity between him and the Mukiya and Vijay
Singh, the such sanha has been lodged by the police
at their instance.
A supplementary affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of the petitioner appending a
judgment of acquittal passed in the aforesaid case
of dacoity with regard to the accused persons and a
certificate granted by the Block Development Officer
regarding the conduct of the petitioner. It is also
stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s
antecedent is clean. However, on the basis of
suspicion raised by the police on the basis of
statement of the Mukhia and Vijay Singh allegedly
recorded in the case regarding the dacoity, the
authorities have come to the conclusion that the
petitioner was also in league of the accused persons.
However, all the accused persons have now been
acquitted of the charges whereas the petitioner’s
license still remain cancelled even though he was
3
not made accused in the aforesaid case even on the
ground of suspicion.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the State. Learned counsel submitted that during
the course of investigation of the aforesaid
regarding Sanha no. 577 dated 23.4.1996, it had
transpired to the Officer In-charge that the petitioner
conduct was suspicious. However, nothing has
been brought on record to show that either the
petitioner is having any criminal antecedent or
what was the basis of such suspicion.
In above view of the matter, in my opinion
the orders impugned cannot be sustained in law as
they have been passed merely on the basis of
suspicion.
As a result, both the order dated
22.6.99/28.6.99 passed by the District Magistrate,
Rohtas in Arms Case No. 35 of 1996 as well as
appellate order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the
Commissioner, Patna Division in Case No. 103/1999
as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively are
quashed and the matter is remitted back to the
4
Collector, Rohtas to consider the case of the
petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order after
considering the materials available on record and
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within
eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of
a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ application stands
allowed to the extent as indicated above.
Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)