{"id":135049,"date":"2010-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-24T07:04:14","modified_gmt":"2017-11-24T01:34:14","slug":"tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rakesh Kumar<\/div>\n
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31887 OF 1999\n                                         ------\n<\/pre>\n
                     In the matter of an application under section 482 of
\n                    the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ——-\n<\/p>\n
                   TARIQUE AHMAD @ TARIQUE ALAM
\n                   son of Md.Sadique, resident of village Belua,
\n                   P.S.Kishanganj, District Kishanganj
\n                                         ……..            …….Petitioner
\n                                         Versus
\n                  STATE OF BIHAR … ……                     …….Opp. Party\n<\/p>\n
                                          ———-\n<\/p>\n
                   For the petitioner : M\/s. Najmul Hoda, Firoz Ahamd and
\n                                               Dr.Alok Kumar Alok
\n                   For the State       : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhayay, Addl.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ———\n<\/p>\n
                                      PRESENT
\n                    THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR\n<\/p>\n
                                        ——-\n<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar,J.                The     sole   petitioner,     while   invoking   inherent<\/p>\n
                   jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
                   Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 8.9.1999<\/p>\n
                   passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in G.R. Case<\/p>\n
                   No.136 of 1998 arising out of Bahadurganj P.S. Case No.15 of<\/p>\n
                   1998. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance<\/p>\n
                   of offences under sections 420, 384 and 323 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
                   Code and under Section 3\/4 of the Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
                   Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
                   referred to as S.C\/S.T. Act).\n<\/p>\n
                               2. Short fact of the case is that earlier a complaint was<\/p>\n
                   filed by the informant\/complainant-Babu Lal Pandiya in the Court<\/p>\n
                   of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj vide Complaint Case<\/p>\n
                   No.32 of 1998 which was referred to the police for its registration<\/p>\n
                   and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
                   Procedure    and,    thereafter,   first   information   report   vide<\/p>\n
                   Bahadurganj P.S. Case No.15 of 1998 was registered. After
\n                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
investigating the case, the police submitted charge sheet and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, learned Magistrate by order dated 8.9.1999 has passed<\/p>\n
order of cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial.<\/p>\n
Since in the present case main ground has been taken by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner that order of cognizance is bad in<\/p>\n
law due to the reason that the case was investigated by the Officer<\/p>\n
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which was<\/p>\n
contrary to the provisions contained in Rules 7 of S.C.\/S.T. Rules,<\/p>\n
1995 and section 9 of the S.C.\/S.T. Act.1989, it is not necessary to<\/p>\n
give in detail the accusations made against this petitioner.<\/p>\n
            3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that as per the provisions of S.C.\/S.T. Act and Rules, no<\/p>\n
Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was<\/p>\n
authorized either to register a case or investigate a case for the<\/p>\n
offence under the S.C.\/S.T. Act. It was submitted that in the<\/p>\n
present case Assistant Sub.Inspector of Police was the<\/p>\n
investigating officer and, as such, on the ground of lack of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of investigating officer it has been argued that the<\/p>\n
entire proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated and, as such,<\/p>\n
order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner in support of his argument has referred to a<\/p>\n
judgment reported in 2002 Cr.L.J.3872 (State of Karnataka Vs.<\/p>\n
Smt.D.Jayamma). It was submitted that in the said case<\/p>\n
prosecution was set aside on the ground that the case under<\/p>\n
S.C.\/S.T. Act was investigated by an Inspector of Police and not<\/p>\n
by the Deputy of Superintendent of Police as prescribed under the<\/p>\n
Rules. Similar view was taken in another case reported in 2004
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.L.J. 2626 (Chandrashekhar Pani and others.Vrs.State of<\/p>\n
Orrisa). Learned counsel has also relied on a judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court reported in 2000(1) PLJR 889 (Mohan Choudhary Vs.<\/p>\n
The State of Bihar and others). In all the cases it has been<\/p>\n
argued that the prosecution was set aside on the ground that the<\/p>\n
case was not investigated by an Officer as required by law i.e.<\/p>\n
Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.<\/p>\n
In all such cases Investigating Officer was either Sub-Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police or Inspector of Police or even Assistant Sub-Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police and as such on the strength of the aforesaid judgments it has<\/p>\n
been argued that in the present case also, since investigation was<\/p>\n
conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,         order of<\/p>\n
cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding is liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             4.   Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Additional<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State on the strength<\/p>\n
of averments made in the counter affidavit which was filed on<\/p>\n
27.8.2010, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It<\/p>\n
has been submitted that allegations made in the first information<\/p>\n
report was thoroughly investigated by the Police and thereafter<\/p>\n
chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. It was argued<\/p>\n
that there were sufficient materials on record to suggest<\/p>\n
commission of offence as alleged in the first information report<\/p>\n
and as such the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of<\/p>\n
offence has committed no mistake. Learned counsel for the State<\/p>\n
has heavily relied on annexure-1 to the counter affidavit which is a<\/p>\n
notification issued under the provisions of S.C.\/S.T. Act. Learned
\n                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the State has also produced a copy of an order passed<\/p>\n
by a Bench of this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 45227 of 2008<\/p>\n
(Chandrabhushan              Tiwari   alias   Bare    Tiwari    and<\/p>\n
others.Vrs.The State of Bihar and another). The said judgment<\/p>\n
was delivered on 19.7.2010. Photo copy of the order has been kept<\/p>\n
on record. It has been submitted that this court had occasioned to<\/p>\n
examine the notification issued by the Government and in the said<\/p>\n
case the accused persons were aggrieved with the order of<\/p>\n
cognizance dated 24.5.2008 whereby the learned Magistrate had<\/p>\n
taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the<\/p>\n
S.C\/S.T.Act. After noticing the notification whereby Assistant<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector of Police was authorized to investigate the case, this<\/p>\n
court has repelled the argument advanced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
accused-petitioners, that the case was not investigated by an<\/p>\n
Officer either of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or<\/p>\n
above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and as such,<\/p>\n
the order of cognizance was legal. On the basis of judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court dated 19.7.2010 as well as notification of authorization of<\/p>\n
the State Government, Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the State has submitted that the petition has got no merit and is<\/p>\n
liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
             5.    Alternatively, it has been argued by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that so far as notification issued by the<\/p>\n
State Government authorizing the          Assistant Sub-Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police is concerned, that notification has been challenged in a writ<\/p>\n
petition which has been admitted and the same is pending. It was<\/p>\n
submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition it would be
\n                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
advisable to defer the hearing of the present case awaiting the<\/p>\n
result of the said writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
of course has not given the number of the writ petition.<\/p>\n
            6.      Besides    questioning    the   jurisdiction   of<\/p>\n
Investigating officer, learned counsel for the petitioner has also<\/p>\n
taken other grounds.\n<\/p>\n
            7.    Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I<\/p>\n
have also perused the materials available on the record as well as<\/p>\n
judgments which have been referred to by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties. On the basis of materials available on the record, the<\/p>\n
Court is satisfied that the order of cognizance was passed rightly<\/p>\n
and correctly. So far as judgments referred to in Smt.D.Jayamma,<\/p>\n
Chadrashekhar Pani’s case (supra) and Mohan Choudhary’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) are concerned, in those cases notification regarding<\/p>\n
authorization of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police for investigating<\/p>\n
the offences under the S.C.\/S.T.Act was not examined and as such<\/p>\n
no benefit can be given to the petitioner on the strength of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid judgments. On the contrary, this Court in Cr.Misc.No.<\/p>\n
45227 of 2008 (Chandrabhushan Tiwari alias Bare Tiwari and<\/p>\n
others Vrs. State of Bihar and another) passed on 19.7.2010<\/p>\n
had noticed a judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
the case of State of M.P. Vs. Chunni Lal alias Chunni Singh.<\/p>\n
In that case, this court has distinguished the said case on the<\/p>\n
ground that in the said case there was no such notification as<\/p>\n
issued in the State of Bihar. This Court has also examined the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Section 9 of the S.C.\/S.T.Act, 1989 and<\/p>\n
Rule 7 of the S.C.\/S.T. Rules, 1995 and thereafter had rejected the
\n                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
                    petition filed against the order of cognizance. Keeping in view the<\/p>\n
                    fact that similar point has already been decided, this Court has no<\/p>\n
                    option but to follow the same principle. In agreement with the<\/p>\n
                    view expressed by this Court in Chandrabhushan Tiwari alias<\/p>\n
                    Bare Tiwari and others (supra), this Court is of the opinion that<\/p>\n
                    the present case is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction<\/p>\n
                    in favour of the petitioner. The alternative argument which has<\/p>\n
                    been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that since       the<\/p>\n
                    writ petition questioning the notification of authorization of<\/p>\n
                    Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is pending this case may be kept<\/p>\n
                    in abeyance is concerned, the Court is of the view that such<\/p>\n
                    submission is required to be noticed only for its rejection.<\/p>\n
                    Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present case and the<\/p>\n
                    petition stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                 8.     Keeping in view the fact that the present case<\/p>\n
                    was pending since long and there was an order of stay, it is<\/p>\n
                    desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case<\/p>\n
                    expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
                                 9.    In view of rejection of this petition, the interim<\/p>\n
                    order of stay stands automatically vacated.<\/p>\n
                                 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below<\/p>\n
                    forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Patna High Court,                                       ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)\nThe 21st September, 2010\nMd.S.\/AFR.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010 Author: Rakesh Kumar CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31887 OF 1999 —— In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ——- TARIQUE AHMAD @ TARIQUE ALAM son of Md.Sadique, resident of village Belua, P.S.Kishanganj, District […]<\/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-135049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 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\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-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=\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-24T01:34:14+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T01:34:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1590,\"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\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-24T01:34:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 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":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 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\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-24T01:34:14+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T01:34:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010"},"wordCount":1590,"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\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010","name":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-24T01:34:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarique-ahmad-tarique-alam-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarique Ahmad @ Tarique Alam vs State Of Bihar on 21 September, 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\/135049","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=135049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}