Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6933 of 2005 ====================================================== Shambhu Dayal Singh, son of late Sakaldeep Singh, resident of village – Grainpur, P S – Avtar Nagar, Distt. Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Home Commissioner, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran. 3. District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 4. Officer Incharge, Avtar Nagar, P S – Avtar Nagar, 5. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Jagarnath Singh, resident of village - Fakwalia, P S – Avtar Nagar, Distt. Saran at Chapra. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dewendra Nr.Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 5 04-07-2012 There is suppression of fact on behalf of the petitioner while filing the writ application because whatevewr be the understanding of the petitioner on the issue he had an obligation to bring to the notice of this Court the fact that he has been convicted by a court of Additional District and Sessions Judge for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Till the petitioner is exonerated by a superior court the taint Patna High Court CWJC No.6933 of 2005 (5) dt.04-07-2012 2 / 2 2 or the factum that the petitioner is a convict cannot be wished away. So far as other dimensions are concerned it is not that the authorities have not applied themselves to the issue. The fine distinction that the petitioner is trying to make on the question of allegation, which led to his conviction that there is no allegation against him of using arms to commit such an offence cannot be appreciated by this Court, for the simple reason that if the petitioner has such latent tendency to violate law then the licensing authority surely will have to take into consideration whether such a person can be trusted with the arms and whether such arm is for his self defence or for terrorizing his neighbours or relations as the case may be. Writ is dismissed. Petitioner may have an occasion to re-agitate the matter if he is exonerated by the appellate court. R.K.Pathak/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.