{"id":102438,"date":"2010-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-26T14:23:26","modified_gmt":"2018-06-26T08:53:26","slug":"gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rakesh Kumar<\/div>\n
                  Criminal Miscellaneous No.29646 OF 1999\n                                  ----\n<\/pre>\n
                In the matter of an application under Section
\n                482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
                                  —-\n<\/p>\n
              GOPAL LAL SIZUAR, SON OF LATE NARAIN LAL KATARIAR
\n              RESIDENCE OF SIZUAR STATE, RAM SAGAR, POLICE
\n              STATION- CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA.\n<\/p>\n
                       ...         ...      PETITIONER.\n                                 Versus\n          1. THE STATE OF BIHAR\n<\/pre>\n
          2. BABAN LAL BARIK S\/O BHARAT LAL BARIK R\/O MOHALLA
\n              KRISHNA DWARKA, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA.\n<\/p>\n
                        ...        ...      OPPOSITE PARTIES.\n                                  ----\n          For the Petitioner     : M\/S Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr.Adv.\n                                        Pankaj Kumar Das,Adv.\n                                        Pankaj Kumar Singh,Adv.\n          For the State          : Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad,A.P.P.\n          For O.P. No.2          : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.\n                                  ----\n                              P R E S E N T\n\n<\/pre>\n
                    THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR\n<\/p>\n
                                   —-\n<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar,J.            The   sole   petitioner,   while   invoking<\/p>\n
                  inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section<\/p>\n
                  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed<\/p>\n
                  for quashing of an order dated 20.9.1999 passed by<\/p>\n
                  Sri B.M. Ray, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya<\/p>\n
                  in G.R. Case No.89 of 1990\/Trial No.529 of 1999<\/p>\n
                  arising out of Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.12 of<\/p>\n
                  1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has<\/p>\n
                  summoned the petitioner as an additional accused in<\/p>\n
                  the case for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323,<\/p>\n
                  324\/34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
                           2. Short fact of the case is that on the
\n                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
basis    of     fardbeyan        of        opposite      party       no.2,     an<\/p>\n
F.I.R. vide Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.12 of<\/p>\n
1999    was    registered         on       9.1.1999      for    the      offence<\/p>\n
under    Sections         147,       148,    324,     323,      379      of   the<\/p>\n
Indian    Penal      Code.       In    the    F.I.R.,       seven        persons<\/p>\n
including this petitioner were named as an accused<\/p>\n
in Column No.7. Fardbeyan of informant was recorded<\/p>\n
on     7.1.1999      at        about        4.00    P.M.       in      Paligram<\/p>\n
Hospital,       Gaya      by    the    Sub        Inspector       of     Police,<\/p>\n
Kotwali Police Station, Gaya. It was disclosed in<\/p>\n
the fardbeyan that on the same day at about 1.00<\/p>\n
P.M.,    while      he    was     returning          from      Gaya      Railway<\/p>\n
Station,       on    way,       he     was    intercepted           by    seven<\/p>\n
accused       persons     including          the    present         petitioner<\/p>\n
and they started abusing the petitioner. When the<\/p>\n
informant       asked      not        to    abuse     all      the       accused<\/p>\n
persons infuriated. It was disclosed that some of<\/p>\n
the accused persons were carrying gupti and lathi.<\/p>\n
In the said occurrence, this petitioner by abusing<\/p>\n
the informant ordered other accused persons to kill<\/p>\n
the     informant         and     thereafter,            accused         Sugolal<\/p>\n
Pathak    inflicted            gupti       blow    over     the      informant<\/p>\n
which    hit    on     the      right       hand    of    the       informant.<\/p>\n
Accused Chhotelal Meharwar had assaulted him with<\/p>\n
lathi and rest of the accused persons assaulted the
\n                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
informant by fist. It was also alleged that one of<\/p>\n
the accused persons in the said occurrence forcibly<\/p>\n
took his watch from his hand and thereafter, on<\/p>\n
hulla     being    raised        by    the     informant,       several<\/p>\n
persons      assembled          there        and     witnessed         the<\/p>\n
occurrence. On the basis of fardbeyan, an F.I.R.<\/p>\n
vide Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.12 of 1999 was<\/p>\n
registered      and     police       started       investigating       the<\/p>\n
case. After investigation, police submitted charge<\/p>\n
sheet against six accused persons for the offence<\/p>\n
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code. However, the allegation of snatching of<\/p>\n
watch was found untrue.\n<\/p>\n
           3.     After        submission      of     charge     sheet,<\/p>\n
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya perused the<\/p>\n
same as well as case diary. The learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
by its order dated 22.4.1999 dropped the proceeding<\/p>\n
against    the    petitioner.          However,       the    court     was<\/p>\n
satisfied that prima facie case under Sections 147,<\/p>\n
148, 324 of the Indian Penal Code was made against<\/p>\n
six F.I.R. named accused persons shown in Column<\/p>\n
No.4 of the charge sheet and, accordingly, after<\/p>\n
taking      cognizance,           learned           Chief      Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate      directed       for    issuance       of     summons    and<\/p>\n
transfered      the     case    to    the    court     of    Shri     P.R.
\n                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya for<\/p>\n
disposal in accordance with law and thereafter, on<\/p>\n
the date of framing of the charge i.e. on 4.8.1999,<\/p>\n
a petition was filed on behalf of the informant<\/p>\n
indicating therein that police in connivance with<\/p>\n
this petitioner had submitted final report in his<\/p>\n
favour.   It   was     further       stated    that       there   were<\/p>\n
enough material in the case diary itself warranting<\/p>\n
summoning of the petitioner. The learned Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, by its order dated 20.9.1999, allowed<\/p>\n
the   petition     dated       4.8.1999       and    directed       for<\/p>\n
issuance of summon to this petitioner.<\/p>\n
          3.     Aggrieved        with        the     order       dated<\/p>\n
20.9.1999, the petitioner approached this Court by<\/p>\n
filing the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
          4.     While     challenging         the    order       dated<\/p>\n
20.9.1999, Shri Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel   appearing      on    behalf     of    the       petitioner,<\/p>\n
submits   that     the     order      impugned        was     without<\/p>\n
jurisdiction      and      contrary       to        the     procedure<\/p>\n
prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It<\/p>\n
was   argued   that     once   the    learned       Chief    Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate had dropped the proceeding relating to<\/p>\n
the petitioner by its order dated 22.4.1999, the<\/p>\n
transferee Magistrate was having no jurisdiction to
\n                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
pass an order for summoning the petitioner which<\/p>\n
amounts to review of earlier order. It was argued<\/p>\n
that review of an order by the Magistrate was not<\/p>\n
permissible and it is prohibited under Section 362<\/p>\n
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel, in support of his stand, has relied upon<\/p>\n
several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported<\/p>\n
in 2008(4)SCC 82 (R. Rajeshwary Vs. H.M. Jagdish),<\/p>\n
2005(12)SCC 361 (Surendra Singh Vs. State), 2008(2)<\/p>\n
PLJR SC 167 (Sumita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain) and<\/p>\n
2006(1) SCC 273 (Dharampal Vs. State of Haryana).<\/p>\n
Shri Ashwini Kumar Singh, relying on the aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgments       as     well    as   while     referring        to     the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Section 362 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, has argued that the impugned<\/p>\n
order    i.e.    order      dated   20.9.1999       passed      by    the<\/p>\n
Judicial    Magistrate,         Gaya    amounts     to       review    of<\/p>\n
order dated 22.4.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Gaya. It was further argued that for<\/p>\n
the    purposes       of   adding   a   person    as     accused      for<\/p>\n
facing trial along with accused persons, who are<\/p>\n
already put on trial, there is only one provision<\/p>\n
in the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Section 319<\/p>\n
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted<\/p>\n
that    power     under       Section   319    of      the    Code    of
\n                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure is to be exercised in a case<\/p>\n
where some evidence showing involvement of a person<\/p>\n
is    brought          on    record.       It     was     submitted           that<\/p>\n
evidence as per provision contained in Section 3 of<\/p>\n
the    Evidence             Act    means     that       unless         oral     or<\/p>\n
documentary        material         is     placed    during       the     trial<\/p>\n
before   the       court,          it     cannot     be     considered         as<\/p>\n
evidence and in absence of any such evidence power<\/p>\n
under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
cannot be exercised. It was submitted that in the<\/p>\n
present case, whatever material was available on<\/p>\n
the date of dropping the case of the petitioner<\/p>\n
i.e. on 22.4.1999 whereby after dropping the case<\/p>\n
of     the        petitioner,             learned         Chief        Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate had taken cognizance in respect of other<\/p>\n
accused, same materials were available on the date<\/p>\n
of    impugned         order       i.e.     order       dated     20.9.1999.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,           Shri       Singh     has     submitted          that     in<\/p>\n
absence of any new evidence\/material, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate was not entitled to pass an order for<\/p>\n
summoning the petitioner to face the trial at the<\/p>\n
stage of charge.\n<\/p>\n
             5.         Learned          Senior         Counsel         besides<\/p>\n
submitting that the impugned order is liable to be<\/p>\n
set   aside       on    the       ground    that    review        of    earlier
\n                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
order was not permissible, has faintly argued that<\/p>\n
the petition dated 4.8.1999, which was filed by the<\/p>\n
informant     for      summoning      the    petitioner       was    not<\/p>\n
maintainable.       He    submits     that    under    the    Code    of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, the informant or his counsel is<\/p>\n
required only to render assistance to the Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor, but in the present case, the informant<\/p>\n
himself had filed petition before the Magistrate<\/p>\n
and as such the petition was liable to be ignored<\/p>\n
by the learned Magistrate, but instead of ignoring<\/p>\n
the same, the learned Magistrate had proceeded on<\/p>\n
the said petition and thereafter, impugned order<\/p>\n
was passed. On aforesaid grounds, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing<\/p>\n
of the order dated 20.9.1999 passed in G.R. Case<\/p>\n
No.89 of 1990\/Trial No.529 of 1999 arising out of<\/p>\n
Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case No.12 of 1999.<\/p>\n
            6.    In     this   case,       Shri    Ranjeet    Kumar,<\/p>\n
learned advocate has appeared on behalf of opposite<\/p>\n
party no.2 and he has vehemently opposed the prayer<\/p>\n
of the petitioner. In this case, Shri Lala Kailash<\/p>\n
Bihari Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the State has rendered assistance to the<\/p>\n
court   for      coming    to   the     just       decision   in     the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
                    -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
            7.     Shri       Ranjeet     Kumar,         learned    advocate<\/p>\n
appearing     on    behalf          of   opposite         party    no.2   has<\/p>\n
heavily relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court reported in A.I.R. 1967 SC 1167 (Raghubansh<\/p>\n
Dubey Vs. State of Bihar). Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
opposite party no.2 has referred to paragraph-10 of<\/p>\n
Raghubansh Dubey’s case (Supra), which says that<\/p>\n
“when a Magistrate takes cognizance under Section<\/p>\n
190(1)(b) on a police report he takes cognizance of<\/p>\n
the    offence      and       not     merely        on    the     particular<\/p>\n
persons named in the charge sheet, and, therefore<\/p>\n
the   Magistrate         is    entitled        to    summon       additional<\/p>\n
accused against whom he considers that there was<\/p>\n
good evidence, after perusal of statements recorded<\/p>\n
by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and<\/p>\n
the other documents referred to in Section 173 of<\/p>\n
Cr. P.C. even without examination of witnesses in<\/p>\n
court”.     Accordingly,            he   has    argued       that    in   the<\/p>\n
present case, after examining the case diary and<\/p>\n
looking into the statement of witnesses recorded<\/p>\n
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
and    only      after        being      satisfied         regarding      the<\/p>\n
involvement of the petitioner in the crime of the<\/p>\n
present case, the learned Magistrate, has rightly<\/p>\n
by    its   order    dated       20.9.1999,          has    directed      for
\n                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
issuance        of        summon       against       the       petitioner.<\/p>\n
According to learned counsel for the opposite party<\/p>\n
no.2,    the     order         dated     20.9.1999       passed      by   the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate is in strict compliance with the<\/p>\n
provisions       contained          in      the    Code       of    Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure and need no interference by this Court.<\/p>\n
            8.       Besides      hearing,        learned     counsel     for<\/p>\n
the    parties,       I    have    also     examined       the     materials<\/p>\n
available on record of the present case. In the<\/p>\n
case, on perusal of the copy of the charge sheet,<\/p>\n
which     has    been          annexed      as    Annexure-2         to   the<\/p>\n
petition, it is evident that though seven persons<\/p>\n
were named as accused, name of six accused persons<\/p>\n
were    included          in     accused    column       of    the    charge<\/p>\n
sheet, who were sent up for trial. The name of<\/p>\n
petitioner was incorporated in Column No.2 of the<\/p>\n
charge sheet. It is further evident that during the<\/p>\n
investigation,             the    allegation        of      informant      in<\/p>\n
respect    of    commission            of   offence      under     Sections<\/p>\n
147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code was<\/p>\n
found true. However, the allegation of snatching of<\/p>\n
watch was found untrue.\n<\/p>\n
            9. On perusal of order dated 22.4.1999, it<\/p>\n
appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
while recording a sentence in the order that “the\n<\/p>\n
                     – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
proceeding of the case against accused Gopal Lal<\/p>\n
Sizuar is hereby dropped”, has committed an error.<\/p>\n
In    its    order     dated     22.4.1999,         the    learned      Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate was required to take cognizance<\/p>\n
of the offence and there was no occasion for him to<\/p>\n
record a finding for dropping the case in respect<\/p>\n
of the petitioner particularly in view of the fact<\/p>\n
that in the charge sheet, the petitioner’s name had<\/p>\n
occurred       in    Column      No.2.       At    this    stage,       it   is<\/p>\n
necessary      to     indicate         that   even       in    a   situation<\/p>\n
where an F.I.R. named accused is not recommended<\/p>\n
for    trial    and      police        recommends        for    prosecuting<\/p>\n
other       accused          persons,     a       Magistrate       is    well<\/p>\n
competent       to      take     cognizance          of       offence    even<\/p>\n
against accused not sent up for trial, if there is<\/p>\n
material on record to show his involvement.<\/p>\n
               10. So far as present case is concerned,<\/p>\n
it is not in dispute that till the date of passing<\/p>\n
of    the    impugned         order,    no    witness      was     examined.<\/p>\n
Once    on     the     same      material,         the    learned       Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, rightly or wrongly, had passed<\/p>\n
order for dropping the case against the petitioner<\/p>\n
on the same material the transferee Magistrate was<\/p>\n
not required to summon the petitioner without any<\/p>\n
evidence brought on record at subsequent stage.\n<\/p>\n
               – 11 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         11. In the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
present case, particularly in view of the fact that<\/p>\n
for an occurrence which took place on 8.1.1999, no<\/p>\n
progress could take place in the case before the<\/p>\n
court below since criminal proceeding in G.R. No.89<\/p>\n
of 1999\/Tr. No.529 of 1999, arising out of Gaya<\/p>\n
Civil Lines P.S. Case No.12 of 1999 was stayed by<\/p>\n
this Court on 21.2.2000, at this belated stage it<\/p>\n
would not be proper to direct the petitioner to<\/p>\n
participate   in       the   proceeding   before   the   court<\/p>\n
below.\n<\/p>\n
         12. Accordingly, for the ends of justice,<\/p>\n
it is desirable to quash the order dated 20.9.1999<\/p>\n
passed by Sri B.M. Roy, Judicial Magistrate, Ist<\/p>\n
Class, Gaya in G.R. No.89 of 1999\/Tr. No.529 of<\/p>\n
1999, arising out of Gaya Civil Lines P.S. Case<\/p>\n
No.12 of 1999 and same is hereby quashed. Petition<\/p>\n
stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)<\/p>\n
PATNA HIGH COURT
\nDated 3rd August, 2010
\nN.A.F.R.\/N.H.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 Author: Rakesh Kumar Criminal Miscellaneous No.29646 OF 1999 —- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. —- GOPAL LAL SIZUAR, SON OF LATE NARAIN LAL KATARIAR RESIDENCE OF SIZUAR STATE, RAM SAGAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2093,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010"},"wordCount":2093,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010","name":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T08:53:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-lal-sizuar-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopal Lal Sizuar vs State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}