{"id":163945,"date":"2007-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-28T05:50:06","modified_gmt":"2017-07-28T00:20:06","slug":"guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1305 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nGuriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Bihar and Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1305           OF 2007<br \/>\n(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6219 of 2005)<\/p>\n<p>DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe appellants call in question  legality of the order<br \/>\npassed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the Criminal Revision filed by them.  Challenge<br \/>\nbefore the High Court was to the revisional order passed by<br \/>\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,<br \/>\nMotihari. By order dated 10.09.2004, learned Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge set aside the order of learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Motihari in G.R. No.996 of 99\/Tr. No.693 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>FIR was lodged on 29.05.1999 by Manzoor Baitha<br \/>\nalleging that his parents, brother and sisters had a fight with<br \/>\nhis family members.  Annu Siddiqui hit on the head of his son<br \/>\nAkbar Hawari with the butt of a pistol and he also snatched<br \/>\naway a wrist watch of his son. Cognizance was taken on<br \/>\n27.9.1999 and charge-sheet was filed on 09.09.1999.  Charges<br \/>\nwere framed on 14.3.2000.  Only three persons were arrayed<br \/>\nas accused persons and the present appellants were not<br \/>\narrayed as accused.  It appears that a protest petition was<br \/>\nfiled before charges were framed on 14.03.2000 but the same<br \/>\nwas rejected.  Recording of prosecution evidence commenced<br \/>\non 16.04.2001 and continued till 29.04.2002. The prosecution<br \/>\nevidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused<br \/>\npersons was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short &#8216;Cr.P.C.&#8217;) on 19.02.2003.<br \/>\nThereafter on 07.05.2003, an application in terms of Section<br \/>\n311 Cr.P.C. was filed and was allowed and two more witnesses<br \/>\ni.e. PWs 4 and 5 were examined.  An application under Section<br \/>\n319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.01.2004 stating that new evidence<br \/>\nhas surfaced which requires the trial of the present appellants.<br \/>\nIt is to be noted that PWs 4 and 5 were examined on 6.1.2004<br \/>\npursuant to the order in the application filed  under Section<br \/>\n311 Cr.P.C.  The  petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was<br \/>\nrejected by the Trial Court holding that no case was made out<br \/>\nfor putting the appellants on trial. Learned Sessions Judge<br \/>\nwas moved for revision and the same was allowed. The High<br \/>\nCourt dismissed the revision petition filed on the ground that<br \/>\nthere are materials against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the<br \/>\napplication under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was nothing but an<br \/>\nabuse of process of the court as the narration of facts above<br \/>\nwould go to show. Every possible attempt was made to<br \/>\nintroduce materials against the appellants which were not on<br \/>\nrecord. Even after the examination of the accused under<br \/>\nSection 313 Cr.P.C., an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nwas allowed.  Two witnesses were examined on 6.1.2004. Even<br \/>\ntheir evidence in no way connects the appellants to the alleged<br \/>\nincident.  PWs 1, 2 and 3, who were examined on 16.04.2001,<br \/>\n8.01.2002 and 29.04.2002 merely stated about the alleged<br \/>\npresence of the appellants. No definite role was ascribed to<br \/>\nthem.  Therefore, the application in terms of Section 319<br \/>\nCr.P.C. was not maintainable and in any event was mala fide.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLearned counsel for the State submitted that the<br \/>\nprosecution has not filed any application under Section 319<br \/>\nCr.P.C. It was only PW-1, the informant who had filed such an<br \/>\napplication. Learned counsel for the complainant  respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 submitted that the appellants were named in the FIR.<br \/>\nPWs 1, 2 and 3 spoke about their presence. Therefore, they<br \/>\nshould have been arrayed as accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe parameters for dealing with an application under Section<br \/>\n319 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by this Court in several cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1335414\/\">In Michael Machado and Anr. v.  Central Bureau Of<br \/>\nInvestigation and Anr.<\/a>  (2000 (3) SCC 262) it was observed as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The basic requirements for invoking the<br \/>\nabove section is that it should appear to the<br \/>\ncourt from the evidence collected during trial<br \/>\nor in the inquiry that some other person, who<br \/>\nis not arraigned as an accused in that case ,<br \/>\nhas committed an offence for which that<br \/>\nperson could be tried together with the<br \/>\naccused already arraigned.  It is not enough<br \/>\nthat the court entertained some doubt, from<br \/>\nthe evidence, about the involvement of another<br \/>\nperson in the offence.  In other words, the<br \/>\ncourt must have reasonable satisfaction from<br \/>\nthe evidence already collected regarding two<br \/>\naspects.  First is that the other person has<br \/>\ncommitted an offence.  Second is that for such<br \/>\noffence that other person could as well be tried<br \/>\nalong with the already arraigned accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBut even then what is conferred on the<br \/>\ncourt is only a discretion as could be discerned<br \/>\nfrom the words &#8220;the court may proceed against<br \/>\nsuch person.&#8221; The discretionary power so<br \/>\nconferred should be exercised only to achieve<br \/>\ncriminal justice.  It is not that the court should<br \/>\nturn against another person whenever it comes<br \/>\nacross evidence connecting that other person<br \/>\nalso with the offence.  A judicial exercise is<br \/>\ncalled for, keeping a conspectus of the case,<br \/>\nincluding the stage at which the trial has<br \/>\nproceeded already and the quantum of<br \/>\nevidence collected till then, and also the<br \/>\namount of time which the court had spent for<br \/>\ncollecting such evidence.  It must be<br \/>\nremembered that there is no compelling duty<br \/>\non the court to proceed against other persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe court while deciding whether to<br \/>\ninvoke the power under Section 319 of the<br \/>\nCode, must address itself about the other<br \/>\nconstraints imposed by the first limb of sub-<br \/>\nsection (4), that proceedings in respect of<br \/>\nnewly-added persons shall be commenced<br \/>\nafresh and the witnesses re-examined.  The<br \/>\nwhole proceedings must be recommended from<br \/>\nthe beginning of the trial, summon the<br \/>\nwitnesses once again and examine them and<br \/>\ncross-examine them in order to reach the stage<br \/>\nwhere it had reached earlier.  If the witnesses<br \/>\nalready examined are quite large in number<br \/>\nthe court must seriously consider whether the<br \/>\nobjects sought to be achieved by such exercise<br \/>\nare worth wasting the whole labour already<br \/>\nundertaken.  Unless the court is hopeful that<br \/>\nthere is a reasonable prospect of the case as<br \/>\nagainst the newly-brought accused ending in<br \/>\nbeing convicted of the offence concerned we<br \/>\nwould say that the court should refrain from<br \/>\nadopting such a course of action&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002 (5)<br \/>\nSCC 738),  it was, inter-alia observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The intention of the provision here is<br \/>\nthat where in the course of any enquiry into,<br \/>\nor trial of, an offence, it appears to the court<br \/>\nfrom the evidence that any person not being<br \/>\nthe accused has committed any offence, the<br \/>\ncourts may proceed against him for the offence<br \/>\nwhich he appears to have committed.  At that<br \/>\nstage, the court would consider that such a<br \/>\nperson could be tried together with the<br \/>\naccused who is already before the court facing<br \/>\nthe trial.  The safeguard provided in respect of<br \/>\nsuch person is that, the proceedings right from<br \/>\nthe beginning have mandatorily to be<br \/>\ncommenced afresh and the witnesses reheard.<br \/>\nIn short, there has to be a de novo trial against<br \/>\nhim. The provision of de novo trial is<br \/>\nmandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a<br \/>\nperson so brought before the court.  It would<br \/>\nnot be sufficient to only tender the witnesses<br \/>\nfor the cross-examination of such a person.<br \/>\nThey have to be examined afresh. Fresh<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief and not only their<br \/>\npresentation for the purpose of the cross-<br \/>\nexamination of the newly added accused is the<br \/>\nmandate of Section 319 (4).  The words &#8220;could<br \/>\nbe tried together with the accused&#8221; in Section<br \/>\n319 (1), appear to be only directory.  &#8220;Could<br \/>\nbe&#8221; cannot under these circumstances be held<br \/>\nto be &#8220;must be&#8221;.  The provision cannot be<br \/>\ninterpreted to mean that since the trial in<br \/>\nrespect of a person who was before the court<br \/>\nhas concluded with the result that the newly<br \/>\nadded person cannot be tried together with the<br \/>\naccused who was before the court when order<br \/>\nunder Section 319(1) was passed, the order<br \/>\nwould become ineffective and inoperative,<br \/>\nnullifying the opinion earlier formed by the<br \/>\ncourt on the basis of the evidence before it that<br \/>\nthe newly added person appears to have<br \/>\ncommitted the offence resulting in an order for<br \/>\nhis being brought before the court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAgain in Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004 (7)<br \/>\nSCC 792), it was observed as follows:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;It has been repeatedly held that the<br \/>\npower to summon an accused is an<br \/>\nextraordinary power conferred on the court<br \/>\nand should be used very sparingly and only if<br \/>\ncompelling reasons exist for taking cognizance<br \/>\nagainst the other person against whom action<br \/>\nhas not been taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the present case, we need not go into<br \/>\nthe question whether prima facie the evidence<br \/>\nimplicates the appellant or not and whether<br \/>\nthe possibility of his conviction is remote, or<br \/>\nhis presence and instigation stood established,<br \/>\nfor in our view the exercise of discretion by the<br \/>\nMagistrate, in any event of the matter, did not<br \/>\ncall for interference by the High Court, having<br \/>\nregard to the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1335414\/\">In Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of<br \/>\nInvestigation<\/a> construing the words &#8220;the court<br \/>\nmay proceed against such person&#8221; in Section<br \/>\n319 CrPC, this Court held that the power is<br \/>\ndiscretionary and should be exercised only to<br \/>\nachieve criminal justice and that the court<br \/>\nshould not turn against another person<br \/>\nwhenever it comes across evidence connecting<br \/>\nthat other person also with the offence.  This<br \/>\nCourt further held that a judicial exercise is<br \/>\ncalled for, keeping a conspectus of the case,<br \/>\nincluding the stage at which the trial has<br \/>\nalready proceeded and the quantum of<br \/>\nevidence collected till then, and also the<br \/>\namount of time which the Court had spent for<br \/>\ncollecting such evidence.  The court, while<br \/>\nexamining an application under Section 319<br \/>\nCrPC, has also to bear in mind that there is no<br \/>\ncompelling duty on the court to proceed<br \/>\nagainst other persons.  In a nutshell, it means<br \/>\nthat for exercise of discretion under Section<br \/>\n319 CrPC, all relevant factors, including the<br \/>\none noticed above, have to be kept in view and<br \/>\nan order is not required to be made<br \/>\nmechanically merely on the ground that some<br \/>\nevidence had come on record implicating the<br \/>\nperson sought to be added as an accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tApplying the test as aforesaid to the facts<br \/>\nof the present case, in our view, the trial<br \/>\nMagistrate is right in rejecting the application.<br \/>\nThe incident was of the year 1993. Seventeen<br \/>\nwitnesses had been examined.  The statements<br \/>\nof the accused under Section 313 CrPC had<br \/>\nbeen recorded.  The role attributed to the<br \/>\nappellant, as per the impugned judgment of<br \/>\nthe High Court, was of instigation.  Having<br \/>\nregard to these facts coupled with the<br \/>\nquashing of proceedings in the year 1995<br \/>\nagainst the appellant, it could not be held that<br \/>\nthe discretion was illegally exercised by the<br \/>\nTrial Magistrate so as to call for interference in<br \/>\nexercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High<br \/>\nCourt.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code have been<br \/>\nelucidated in several decisions of this Court.  In Joginder<br \/>\nSingh and another v. State of Punjab and another (AIR 1979<br \/>\nSC 339), it was observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;6. A plain reading of Sec. 319 (1) which<br \/>\noccurs in Chapter XXIV dealing with general<br \/>\nprovisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly<br \/>\nshows that it applies to all the Courts<br \/>\nincluding a Sessions Court and as such a<br \/>\nSessions Court will have the power to add any<br \/>\nperson, not being the accused before it, but<br \/>\nagainst whom there appears during trial<br \/>\nsufficient evidence indicating his involvement<br \/>\nin the offence, as an accused and direct him to<br \/>\nbe tried along with the other accused;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt was further observed in paragraph 9:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;9.  As regards the contention that the phrase<br \/>\n&#8216;any person not being the accused&#8217; occurred in<br \/>\nSec. 319 excludes from its operation an<br \/>\naccused who has been released by the police<br \/>\nunder Sec. 169 of the Code and has been<br \/>\nshown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the<br \/>\ncontention has merely to be stated to be<br \/>\nrejected.  The said expression clearly covers<br \/>\nany person who is not being tried already by<br \/>\nthe Court and the very purpose of enacting<br \/>\nsuch a provision like Sec. 319(1) clearly shows<br \/>\nthat even persons who have been dropped by<br \/>\nthe police during investigation but against<br \/>\nwhom evidence showing their involvement in<br \/>\nthe offence comes before the Criminal Court<br \/>\nare included in the said expression.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1496064\/\">In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi<br \/>\nand Ors.<\/a> (1983 (1) SCC 1) after referring to the decision in<br \/>\nJoginder Singh&#8217;s case (supra), it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;19. In these circumstances, therefore, if the<br \/>\nprosecution can at any stage produce evidence<br \/>\nwhich satisfies the Court that the other<br \/>\naccused or those who have not been arrayed<br \/>\nas accused against whom proceedings have<br \/>\nbeen quashed have also committed the offence<br \/>\nthe Court can take cognizance against them<br \/>\nand try them along with the other accused.<br \/>\nBut, we would hasten to add that this is really<br \/>\nan extraordinary power which is conferred on<br \/>\nthe Court and should be used very sparingly<br \/>\nand only if compelling reasons exist for taking<br \/>\ncognizance against the other person against<br \/>\nwhom action has not been taken.  More than<br \/>\nthis we would not like to say anything further<br \/>\nat this stage. We leave the entire matter to the<br \/>\ndiscretion of the Court concerned so that it<br \/>\nmay act according to law.  We would, however,<br \/>\nmake it plain that the mere fact that the<br \/>\nproceedings have been quashed against<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 to 5 will not prevent the<br \/>\ncourt from exercising its discretion if it is fully<br \/>\nsatisfied that a case for taking cognizance<br \/>\nagainst them has been made out on the<br \/>\nadditional evidence led before it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tOn a careful reading of Sec. 319 of the Code as well as<br \/>\nthe aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial<br \/>\ncourt has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being<br \/>\nthe accused before it to face the trial along with other accused<br \/>\npersons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceeding<br \/>\non the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been<br \/>\narrayed as accused should face the trial.  It is further evident<br \/>\nthat such person even though had initially been named in the<br \/>\nF.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be<br \/>\nadded to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to<br \/>\nadd such persons  as accused only on the basis of evidence<br \/>\nadduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in<br \/>\nthe charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials<br \/>\ncontained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not<br \/>\nconstitute evidence. Of course, as evident from the decision<br \/>\nreported in <a href=\"\/doc\/1985195\/\">Sohan Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan, (AIR<\/a><br \/>\n1990 SC 2158) the position of an accused who has been<br \/>\ndischarged stands on a different footing.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tPower under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by<br \/>\nthe Court suo motu or on an application by someone including<br \/>\naccused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person<br \/>\nother than accused has committed an offence and he is to be<br \/>\ntried together with the accused. The power is discretionary<br \/>\nand such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard<br \/>\nto the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is<br \/>\nan extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and<br \/>\nshould be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons<br \/>\nexist for taking action against a person against whom action<br \/>\nhad not been taken earlier. The word &#8220;evidence&#8221; in Section 319<br \/>\ncontemplates evidence of witnesses given in Court. Under Sub-<br \/>\nsection (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically<br \/>\nmade clear that it will be presumed that newly added person<br \/>\nhad been an accused person when the Court took cognizance<br \/>\nof the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.<br \/>\nThat would show that by virtue of Sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal<br \/>\nfiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have<br \/>\nbeen taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. <a href=\"\/doc\/450579\/\">(See<br \/>\nLok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR<\/a> 2006 SC 1892)<\/p>\n<p>15.\tThe factual position noted above goes to show that there<br \/>\nwas no new material  after examination of the accused<br \/>\npersons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which threw any light on<br \/>\nthe incident.  The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is not the basis of<br \/>\nthe application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as they have not<br \/>\nspoken anything about the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tAs noted above, PWs 1,2 and 3 have stated about the<br \/>\npresence of the appellants without any definite role being<br \/>\nascribed to them in their evidence recorded on 16.04.2001,<br \/>\n08.01.2002 and 29.04.2002. If really the complainant had any<br \/>\ngrievance about the appellants being not made accused, that<br \/>\ncould have, at the most, be done immediately after the<br \/>\nrecording of evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3.  That has apparently<br \/>\nnot been done.  Additionally, after the charge-sheet was filed,<br \/>\na protest petition was filed by the complainant which was<br \/>\ndismissed.  No explanation whatsoever has been offered as to<br \/>\nwhy the application in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C.  was not<br \/>\nfiled earlier.  The revisional court did not deal with these<br \/>\naspects and came to an abrupt conclusion that all the PWs<br \/>\nhave stated that the appellants have committed overt acts and<br \/>\ntheir names also find place in the protest petition.<br \/>\nUndisputedly, no overt act has been attributed to the<br \/>\nappellants by PWs 1, 2 and 3.  Nothing has been stated about<br \/>\nthe appellants by PWs 4 and 5.  There was  mention of their<br \/>\nnames in the FIR. A protest petition was filed. Same was also<br \/>\nrejected.  These could not have formed the basis of accepting<br \/>\nthe prayer in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder, to say the least, is bereft of any foundation.  It merely<br \/>\nstates that there are materials against the petitioners before it.<br \/>\nIt also did not deal with various aspects highlighted above.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tAbove being the position, the order of the High Court and<br \/>\nthat of learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be<br \/>\nmaintained and are set aside.  The Trial Court had rightly<br \/>\nrejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tThe appeal is, accordingly, allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1305 of 2007 PETITIONER: Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir and Ors RESPONDENT: State of Bihar and Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2007 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-28T00:20:06+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-28T00:20:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-28T00:20:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-28T00:20:06+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-28T00:20:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007"},"wordCount":3012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007","name":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-28T00:20:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/guriya-tabassum-tauquir-and-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-and-anr-on-28-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/163945","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=163945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}