{"id":173563,"date":"2010-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-07T23:26:50","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T17:56:50","slug":"uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) No.5123 of 2009\n\n\n\nUMA SHANKAR SINGH                             ... PETITIONER\n\n\n           Vs.\n\n\nSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                         ... RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    On   17th   February,      2000,      one    Vijay     Singh,<\/p>\n
      brother     of    Bharat       Singh    (deceased)       and<\/p>\n
      Damodar     Singh,       who    was     an       independent<\/p>\n
      candidate    in    the     elections        to   the   Bihar<\/p>\n
      Assembly, lodged a First Information Report
\n                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
with    Maharajganj   Police   Station     which   was<\/p>\n
recorded as Maharajganj P.S. Case No.14 of<\/p>\n
2000.     In the said F.I.R. it was indicated<\/p>\n
that Damodar Singh, the informant’s brother<\/p>\n
was    contesting   the   elections   to   the   Bihar<\/p>\n
Assembly as an independent candidate.            While<\/p>\n
the polling of votes was in progress, Bharat<\/p>\n
Singh was sitting in the Election office when<\/p>\n
he received information that bogus votes were<\/p>\n
being cast at a particular booth and upon<\/p>\n
hearing a bomb explosion at about 11.30 a.m.,<\/p>\n
he proceeded to the place where the incident<\/p>\n
was taking place.         According to the F.I.R.<\/p>\n
version, the informant reached the place in a<\/p>\n
jeep while Bharat Singh followed him on a<\/p>\n
motorcycle.    On reaching the place they were<\/p>\n
informed that a boy had sustained injuries<\/p>\n
and had been rushed to the Maharajganj State<\/p>\n
Hospital for treatment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
2.   When they were leaving the hospital premises,<\/p>\n
     Uma Shankar Singh who was a candidate of the<\/p>\n
     Samata Party in the Assembly election, and<\/p>\n
     his son Jitendra Swami, accompanied by some<\/p>\n
     unknown persons armed with different weapons,<\/p>\n
     arrived at the place of occurrence and on the<\/p>\n
     orders of Uma Shankar Singh, his son Jitendra<\/p>\n
     Swami    pulled    down       Bharat    Singh   from     his<\/p>\n
     motorcycle, pushed him into his car and drove<\/p>\n
     out to an unknown destination.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section<\/p>\n
     364\/34   IPC,     but    after    the    body   of   Bharat<\/p>\n
     Singh was found, Sections 302, 291\/34 IPC and<\/p>\n
     Section 27 of the Arms Act were also added.<\/p>\n
     The matter created a lot of turmoil which<\/p>\n
     resulted      in        the      investigation         being<\/p>\n
     transferred to the CID.           The informant, Vijay<\/p>\n
     Singh, becoming unnerved by the said decision<\/p>\n
     of the State Government, challenged the same<\/p>\n
     in   Crl.   W.J.C.      No.288    of    2000,   which   was
\n                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
disposed of by the High Court on 9th April,<\/p>\n
2001, upon observing that the matter appeared<\/p>\n
to     be     a     fight       between       two       political<\/p>\n
personalities          and     when      investigation          had<\/p>\n
already been completed by one agency and was<\/p>\n
also to be completed by the CID, the question<\/p>\n
would arise as to whether the investigation<\/p>\n
report      under      Section      173(2)       Cr.P.C.      would<\/p>\n
have     to       be      filed     both     by     the       first<\/p>\n
investigating          agency      and   also     by    the    CID.<\/p>\n
The    High       Court    directed        the    CID    and    the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to submit<\/p>\n
their reports to the concerned Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate within two months from the date of<\/p>\n
the    order        and      upon     such       report       being<\/p>\n
submitted, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was<\/p>\n
directed to proceed according to law after<\/p>\n
considering        both      the    reports      and    the    case<\/p>\n
diary.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
4.    By virtue of the order of the High Court,<\/p>\n
      investigation continued both by the CID and<\/p>\n
      the local police and it was decided to file a<\/p>\n
      report in final form against the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
      though      some     other        accused     were       charge-<\/p>\n
      sheeted.       However,           after     examining         the<\/p>\n
      materials      in     the     case    diary,       the    Chief<\/p>\n
      Judicial Magistrate differed with the Final<\/p>\n
      Report submitted by the investigating agency<\/p>\n
      to take cognizance against Jitendra Swami and<\/p>\n
      some other accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    This     led       the      Petitioner        to     file      an<\/p>\n
application       under        Section      227      Cr.P.C.        for<\/p>\n
discharge from the case.                  The said application<\/p>\n
was   taken     up   for       consideration       by    the    First<\/p>\n
Additional      Sessions        Judge,     Siwan,       who    by   his<\/p>\n
order     dated      9th    March,       2007,      rejected        the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s prayer for discharge under Section<\/p>\n
227   Cr.P.C.     and      fixed    a    date     for    framing     of<\/p>\n
charge.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
6.     The    Petitioner       thereupon        filed    Crl.    Misc.<\/p>\n
Case No.18909 of 2007 in the Patna High Court for<\/p>\n
quashing the order passed by the First Additional<\/p>\n
District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, on 9th March,<\/p>\n
2007,       rejecting      the     Petitioner’s         prayer       for<\/p>\n
discharge from the case. The High Court dismissed<\/p>\n
the Crl. Misc. Case vide its order dated 12th May,<\/p>\n
2009.        This Special Leave Petition was filed on<\/p>\n
17th July, 2009, against the said judgment and<\/p>\n
order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     On behalf of the Petitioner it was urged that<\/p>\n
when    he    was    not   named        as   an    accused     in    the<\/p>\n
charge-sheet filed by the investigating agency,<\/p>\n
the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance as<\/p>\n
far    as    he    was   concerned        and     the   trial    court<\/p>\n
should have waited till the stage of Section 319<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.       if    at   all     the    Petitioner       was    to    be<\/p>\n
arrayed as an accused.                 Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned<\/p>\n
Senior       Advocate,      reiterated            the   oft-repeated<\/p>\n
saying that cognizance is taken of an offence and
\n                                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
not the offender.         Mr. Mishra submitted that the<\/p>\n
case was also investigated by the C.I.D. on the<\/p>\n
directions of the High Court and, although, the<\/p>\n
alleged       offence    was    triable     by   a    Court   of<\/p>\n
Session, the learned Magistrate erroneously took<\/p>\n
cognizance thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     Mr. Mishra urged that one of the modes of<\/p>\n
taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate<\/p>\n
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is upon a police report<\/p>\n
of facts constituting the offence.                   Mr. Mishra<\/p>\n
submitted that prior to the enactment of the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which replaced the<\/p>\n
Code     of    Criminal        Procedure,    1898,     if     the<\/p>\n
Magistrate disagreed with the Final Report filed<\/p>\n
by the investigating agency, he was at liberty to<\/p>\n
hold a separate enquiry and to take cognizance<\/p>\n
thereafter. Under the new Code, however, such a<\/p>\n
procedure       was     eliminated    by    virtue     of     the<\/p>\n
amended provisions of Section 209 which made it<\/p>\n
quite clear that when in a case instituted on a
\n                                                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
police report or otherwise, the accused appears<\/p>\n
or is brought before the Magistrate who is of the<\/p>\n
view that the offence is triable exclusively by<\/p>\n
the Court of Session, he shall, after complying<\/p>\n
with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208, as<\/p>\n
the case may be, commit the accused to the Court<\/p>\n
of Session.        It was urged that the Magistrate was<\/p>\n
left with no choice to hold an enquiry but to<\/p>\n
make    an   order     of    commitment        when       the    facts<\/p>\n
disclosed     an    offence       triable     by    the    Court    of<\/p>\n
Session.     In    other    words,       if   the    Final      Report<\/p>\n
under     Section     173(2)        Cr.P.C.         exonerated      an<\/p>\n
accused, there was no scope for the Magistrate to<\/p>\n
hold    an   inquiry        for    the    purpose         of    taking<\/p>\n
cognizance, but to wait for the stage of Section<\/p>\n
319 Cr.P.C. if at all cognizance was to be taken<\/p>\n
in respect of such accused on material that may<\/p>\n
have surfaced during the trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     In support of the said proposition reliance<\/p>\n
was placed on the decision of this Court in Raj
\n                                                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar [(1996) 4 SCC<\/p>\n
495], wherein this Court when confronted with a<\/p>\n
similar    question        held    that    in       order    to    apply<\/p>\n
Section 319 Cr.P.C. against any person other than<\/p>\n
the    accused,       it   would    depend      on    the    evidence<\/p>\n
recorded in the course of any inquiry or trial<\/p>\n
and that proceedings before a Magistrate under<\/p>\n
Section 209 Cr.P.C. are not trial proceedings nor<\/p>\n
were they ever meant to be.\n<\/p>\n
10. Reference was then made to a decision of a<\/p>\n
Three Judge Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh<\/p>\n
vs. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149], wherein<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Judges took the view that when a case<\/p>\n
is     committed      to     the   Court       of    Session       under<\/p>\n
Section        209,    the     Court      of    Session       has    no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to include a new person as accused<\/p>\n
before     evidence          was   led     on       behalf    of    the<\/p>\n
prosecution and that there was no power other<\/p>\n
than     the     power       conferred     under       Section       319<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. by which the Court of Session could join<\/p>\n
a new person as accused.               It was held that there
\n                                                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
is no intermediary stage between committal under<\/p>\n
Section 209 Cr.P.C. and Section 319 Cr.P.C. for<\/p>\n
the aforesaid purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Mr. Mishra submitted that the views expressed<\/p>\n
in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) were contrary to<\/p>\n
those      expressed     by    this     Court   in   the     case    of<\/p>\n
Kishun Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, [(1993) 2<\/p>\n
SCC 16], where, although, 20 persons had been<\/p>\n
named in the F.I.R., the Magistrate had committed<\/p>\n
18    to   the   Court    of     Session    under     Section       209<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. to stand trial.                 On an application made<\/p>\n
under       Section      319      Cr.P.C.       indicating          the<\/p>\n
involvement of the other two accused as well, a<\/p>\n
prayer was made that they should also be summoned<\/p>\n
and arraigned before the court as accused persons<\/p>\n
along with the 18 other accused already named in<\/p>\n
the    charge-sheet.          Despite    objections        raised    on<\/p>\n
behalf      of   the   said     two     persons,     the    Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, in exercise of his discretion, added the<\/p>\n
said persons as accused along with the 18 others.
\n                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
The criminal revision preferred from the order of<\/p>\n
the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed by the<\/p>\n
High Court.      This Court while granting special<\/p>\n
leave held that although the stage of Section 319<\/p>\n
had not been reached, on the materials available,<\/p>\n
the Sessions Judge was within his jurisdiction in<\/p>\n
taking cognizance against the said two persons<\/p>\n
under Section 193 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. The   same    question   once    again   fell   for<\/p>\n
consideration in Kishori Singh & Ors. vs. State<\/p>\n
of Bihar & Anr. [(2004 (13) SCC 11], where the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by this Court in Ranjit Singh’s<\/p>\n
case   (supra)   was   followed,    although,   another<\/p>\n
decision in the case of India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs.<\/p>\n
State of Karnataka & Anr.<\/a> [(1989) 2 SCC 132], was<\/p>\n
also cited wherein another Bench of three Judges<\/p>\n
of this Court had held that despite the police<\/p>\n
report that no case had been made out against the<\/p>\n
accused, the Magistrate can take cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 190(1)(b), taking into
\n                                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
account    the   statement      of    witnesses    made     under<\/p>\n
police investigation and issue process.<\/p>\n
13. Ultimately, the case of Dharampal & Ors. vs.<\/p>\n
State of Haryana & Anr. [(2004) 13 SCC 9], came<\/p>\n
up for consideration before a Bench of two Judges<\/p>\n
when on account of the different views expressed<\/p>\n
by different Benches of this Court, the case was<\/p>\n
directed    to   be   heard     by   a   three    Judge    Bench.<\/p>\n
After     considering     the        various     decisions     in<\/p>\n
connection with the said issue, the three Judge<\/p>\n
Bench observed that prima facie it did not think<\/p>\n
that the interpretation reached in Ranjit Singh’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) was correct and that the law was<\/p>\n
clearly     enunciated        in     Kishun      Singh’s     case<\/p>\n
(supra).    Further, having regard to the fact that<\/p>\n
the decision in Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) was a<\/p>\n
three-Judge      Bench,   the      learned     Judges   directed<\/p>\n
that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble the<\/p>\n
Chief Justice of India for placing the matter<\/p>\n
before a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
14. Mr.     Nagendra     Rai,    learned        Senior    Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for some of the respondents, on the<\/p>\n
other hand, submitted that the question referred<\/p>\n
to the larger Bench in Dharampal’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
is not really        material for a decision in this<\/p>\n
case where the fact situation was different. Mr.<\/p>\n
Rai urged that the law was well-settled that the<\/p>\n
Magistrate    was    not    bound     to    accept       the    Final<\/p>\n
Report     filed    by   the    investigating        authorities<\/p>\n
under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. and was entitled to<\/p>\n
issue    process     against     an     accused    even        though<\/p>\n
exonerated     by    the       said   authorities,         without<\/p>\n
holding any separate enquiry, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
Police Report itself.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. There is substance in Mr. Rai’s submission<\/p>\n
that for a decision in the facts of the case, it<\/p>\n
is not necessary to wait for the outcome of the<\/p>\n
result of the reference made to a larger Bench in<\/p>\n
Dharampal’s case.          The reference is with regard<\/p>\n
to   the    Magistrate’s        power      of   enquiry        if   he
\n                                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
disagreed with the Final Report submitted by the<\/p>\n
investigating authorities. The facts of this case<\/p>\n
are different and are covered by the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in the case of India Carat Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
(supra)       following      the     line    of     cases    from<\/p>\n
Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra<\/a> (1967) 3 SCR 668<\/p>\n
onwards. The law is well-settled that even if the<\/p>\n
investigating authority is of the view that no<\/p>\n
case has been made out against an accused, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate can apply his mind independently to<\/p>\n
the materials contained in the police report and<\/p>\n
take    cognizance    thereupon        in   exercise    of    his<\/p>\n
powers under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
16. That is precisely what has happened in the<\/p>\n
present       case.    In      the     instant       case     the<\/p>\n
investigation had been handed over to the C.I.D.<\/p>\n
and    both   the   C.I.D.    and    the    local   police    had<\/p>\n
submitted their reports in final form exonerating<\/p>\n
the petitioner of the allegations made against<\/p>\n
him in the F.I.R. However, the Chief Judicial
\n                                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
Magistrate, Siwan, took cognizance of the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302\/379 IPC and Section 27 of the<\/p>\n
Arms Act against the petitioner. This is not a<\/p>\n
case where the Magistrate took recourse to any<\/p>\n
further inquiry but took cognizance on the police<\/p>\n
report itself, which he was entitled to do under<\/p>\n
Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17. Even    otherwise,    the   Petitioner    thereafter<\/p>\n
filed an application for discharge before the 1st<\/p>\n
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, in<\/p>\n
Sessions Trial No.281 of 2006, but such prayer<\/p>\n
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and a<\/p>\n
date was fixed for framing of charge. We have<\/p>\n
been informed that charges have since been framed<\/p>\n
against    the   petitioner   which   has   rendered   the<\/p>\n
present     proceedings       infructuous      and     the<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s remedy, if any, will no longer be<\/p>\n
available therein.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
18. The     Special    Leave   Petition      is,           therefore,<\/p>\n
dismissed     in      the   light   of        the            aforesaid<\/p>\n
observations.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     …………………………………………J.
\n                                        (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                     …………………………………………J.
\n                                        (A.K. PATNAIK)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: 09.09.2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, A.K. Patnaik REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) No.5123 of 2009 UMA SHANKAR SINGH … PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. … RESPONDENTS J […]<\/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-173563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 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\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-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=\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-07T17:56:50+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\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T17:56:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2209,\"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\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-07T17:56:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 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":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 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\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-07T17:56:50+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\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T17:56:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010"},"wordCount":2209,"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\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010","name":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-07T17:56:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-shankar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uma Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 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\/173563","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=173563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}