Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.649 of 2011 (5) dt.05-10-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.649 of 2011 ====================================================== Bichari Devi, Wife of Late Ramchandra Yadav, resident of village- Bhawanandpur, P.S. Birpur, District-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General, Government of Bihar, Patna, 5. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur, 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger, 7. The District Magistrate, Begusarai, 8. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, 9. Sri Vivekanand, father’s name not known, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Begusarai, 10. Mr. Kumar Anuj, father’s name not known, Sub Divisional Officer, Begusarai, 11. Sri Amit Bhaskar, father’s name not known, Circle Officer, Birpur Circle, District-Begusarai, 12. Sri Akhil Kumar Singh, father’s name not known, In-charge Station House Officer, Birpur Police Station, District-Begusarai, 13. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Deonandan Singh, resident of village-Panapur, P.S.-Birpur, District-Begusarai & 14. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna. Ors .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, AC to G.P-18. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC to CBI. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 05-10-2012 The petitioner is informant of Birpur P.S.Case No.28 of 2011 dated 16.04.2011 instituted under [STATUTE] as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 2.50 p.m. in village-Bhagwanpur, in which, it Patna High Court CR. WJC No.649 of 2011 (5) dt.05-10-2012 2 has been alleged that nine named accused persons killed the petitioner’s son, namely, Bhulla Yadav. One Arun Kumar Singh (respondent no.13) is the informant of Birpur P.S.Case No.26 of 2011 registered under [STATUTE] as well as 27 of the Arms Act for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 12.04.2012 against 22 persons. Another FIR, which is, Birpur P.S.Case No.27 of 2011 has been registered under [STATUTE] as well as 16(I) and (II) of the Unlawful Activity Act as well as 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act on 16.04.2011, on the basis of the written report submitted by respondent no.11, the Circle Officer, Birpur Circle, for the alleged murder of one Umashankar Rai, a member of the Special Armed Police(in short, SAP,) in an incident in which 25 named and 72 to 75 unknown accused persons, were made accused. In that case, it has also been alleged that the Insas rifle and 50 cartridges were also looted by the accused persons from the deceased SAP Jawan. The FIR also discloses that one Bhulla Yadav was also found dead in the incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bhulla Patna High Court CR. WJC No.649 of 2011 (5) dt.05-10-2012 3 Yadav was killed due to highhandedness of police. The thumb impression of the petitioner was taken under duress and the fardbeyan recorded by the police, as a matter of fact, is not the true version of the case alleged to have been instituted on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that being aggrieved by the manner of institution and investigation of Birpur P.S.Case No.28 of 2011, a protest petition has also been filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. It has further been contended that the petitioner’s son, namely, Rampadarath Yadav has filed a complaint case, being complaint case no.795(C) of 2011, in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai on 02.05.2011 in which respondent nos.9 to 13 have been made accused. He contends that as a matter of fact, the incident which took place on the date of occurrence has correctly been described in the complaint case. The said complaint case is under enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the background of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner has lost faith in the investigating agency. It has, thus, been prayed that all the three cases, i.e., Birpur P.S.Case No.28 of 2011, Birpur P.S.case No.27 of 2011 and Birpur P.S.Case No.26 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.649 of 2011 (5) dt.05-10-2012 4 of 2011 be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for conducting fair and impartial investigation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State which is on record. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, submits that there is no truth behind the allegations that the police is not conducting the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. According to him the allegations made in the writ petition are far from truth. He states that the respondents have done their duty in accordance with law. The correct fact is that the local police along with Magistrate had gone to the place of occurrence to establish status quo ante, on the land where the accused persons had raised the illegal structure in an attempt to grab the land with active support of Naxals active in the area overnight. Sensing caste conflict and increased naxal activity which could have led to massacre, the District Administration felt it prudent to establish status quo ante and advised both the parties to take shelter of court in order to settle the issue of ownership, if any. While the police party and Magistrate were on their lawful duty, the accused persons sprinkled chilly

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.