Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.851 of 2011 ====================================================== Gharghushan Kumar @ Gharghushan Thakur, S/o Late Podharu Thakur, Vill.-Janpara,P.S.-Ranitalab (Kanpa), Dist.-Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The Dy. S. P. Paliganj, Patna 5. The Officer Incharge,Rani Talab Police Station, Patna 6. Sumitra Devi, W/O, Sri Sohrai Yadav Resi.-Janpara, P.S.-Ranitalab, Dist.-Patna. .... .... Respondent ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 31-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On 26.5.2010 Rani Talab P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010 was instituted under [STATUTE] on the basis of fardbeyan of Sumitra Devi, wife of Sohrai Yadav. In the F.I.R., several persons were made accused. They are Shankar Thakur, Vijay Thakur, Janardan Thakur, Rajdeo Thakur and Gharghusan Thakur all sons of Dhaka Thakur, Pawan Thakur, son of Rajdeo Thakur, Tuntun Ram, son of Late Butan Ram, Bhusan Ram, son of late Ram Raj, all of whom were residents of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2011 (2) dt.31-07-2012 2 / 4 2 village-Purani Janpara, P.S.-Rani Talab, District-Patna. In course of investigation, when the accused persons were absconding, warrant of arrest was issued against them and ultimately the court below passed order for attachment, pursuant to which, the properties of the petitioner is also alleged to have been attached. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is son of late Padharu Thakur and not son of Dhaka Thakur and thus, the properties of the petitioner were wrongly attached by the police. He prays that the properties of the petitioner attached by the police be directed to be released. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, in which, it is stated that after lodging the F.I.R. in question the Officer-in-Charge of Rani Talab Police Station took up investigation of the case. During investigation, many accused persons were arrested except Rajdeo Thakur, Janardan Thakur and Gharghushan Thakur (petitioner). Hence, the investigating officer prayed before the court for issuance of order of attachment against the absconding accused Rajdeo Thakur, Janardan Thakur and Gharghushan Thakur. Accordingly, the court below passed order for attachment of the properties of the absconding accused persons. In compliance to the order Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2011 (2) dt.31-07-2012 3 / 4 3 passed by the court, the properties of Rajdeo Thakur, Janardan Thakur and Gharghushan Thakur were attached and on conclusion of investigation, the police has already submitted charge sheet against the accused persons on 31.07.2011. In the counter affidavit, it has further been submitted that after the attachment order passed by the court below was executed against the accused persons, the accused, namely, Rajdeo Thakur and Janardan Thakur have surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and as per direction of the court, the articles of Rajdeo Thakur and Janardan Thakur have already been released. But, since the petitioner failed to appear, the properties attached so far as he is concerned, is lying in the police station Malkhana. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the confusion created by the petitioner that he is not the son of Dhaka Thakur rather he is son of Late Padharu Thakur has been clarified. It has categorically been stated that in course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner is grand son of Dhaka Thakur but the local persons know him as son of Dhaka Thakur and no other person in the name of Gharghushan Thakur resides in the said village. Thus, learned counsel for the State submits that the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2011 (2) dt.31-07-2012 4 / 4 4 petitioner is trying to take advantage of an inadvertent mention of the name of Dhaka Thakur as his father who is actually grand father of the petitioner. In my view, the present writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. The petitioner apparently is an accused in a case under [STATUTE] . He is absconding and against him the court below has taken steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead of appearing before the court below, he has approached this court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks release of the properties attached. The writ petition apparently is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.