IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1168 of 2008 PARMOD KUMAR SINGH S/o Mithile Saran Singh, R/o village Bhusaula Danapur P.S.phulwsari District Patna… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Inspector General of police, Office at Secretariat, Patna. 3.The D.I.G. of police, Office at Pant Bhawan, Patna. 4. Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5.Superintendent of Jazil, Beur, Patna. 6.District magistrate, Patna. ………Respondents. 3 31.03.2009 The petitioner who is a convict in another case lodged in Adarsh Central Jail, Patna along with five others who are also convicts undergoing sentence in the same prison, has been charge-sheeted for the offences under sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 I.P.C. under Charge- sheet No. 103 of 2008 dated 30th June 2008 in connection with Beur P.S.Case No. 69 of 2008 with respect to the killing of convicted prisoner Sanjit Sao who was also undergoing sentence in the same prison. The petitioner’s con tension is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been his contention that during investigation, he had filed representation dated 28th April 2008 (Annexure-4) before the learned chief judicial magistrate, Patna but no relief was given to him. The respondent-authority has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that investigation was thoroughly conducted in this case and on consideration of the statement of witnesses and the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.O. found a prima facie case against the petitioner and others and he submitted charge-sheet. It is submitted on behalf of respondents that after submission of charge- - 2 - sheet the matter is before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who is to consider the materials in the case diary and who has to take cognizance of the offence and to commit the accused to the court of Sessions for facing trial. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has every opportunity to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and make his submissions for discharging him due to insufficiency of evidence and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may grant him relief on consideration of the materials in the case diary. Thus effective alternative remedy is already available to the petitioner. He may approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for redressal of his grievance which is available to him under law. There is no scope for granting any relief at this stage. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J)