IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26890 of 2008 BIPUL KUMAR SINGH @ BIPUL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 12.5.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4/5.7.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Tr.No.2381 of 2007/2222 of 2008 arising out of Isuapur P.S. Case No.86 of 1993, by which he has taken cognizance of offence under sections 392 and 411 of the Penal Code against the petitioner. It is alleged by the informant Pramod Kumar Singh that some accused persons on the point of gun firing snatched his motor cycle. On the basis of the said information, the police instituted a case against the accused persons being Isuapur P.S. Case No.86/93. Thereafter the police started investigation and in the meanwhile one Rajdoot motor cycle was seized by the police and after seizure of the motor cycle a case has been instituted against the petitioner being Saraiya P.S. Case No.191/93. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of trial the petitioner has been acquitted in Saraiya P.S. Case No.191/93 as would be evident form the judgment dated 31.7.1995 as contained in Annexure-4.He further submits that in the present case being Isuapur P.S. Case No.86/93, the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner was taken into custody in Saraiya P.S. Case No.191/93 and in the instant case a production warrant was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra way back on 12.10.1993 but despite issuance of production warrant, he was not - 2 - produced before the Chapra court for the purpose of remand so that he could availe set off provided under the Act. As a result, he has continuously remained in custody since 1994. A specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner has been remanded in the present case namely Isuapur P.S. Case No.86/93 but he was not in a position to give any definite answer to the same. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order taking cognizance under sections 392 and 411 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on being prima facie satisfied has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial. After hearing counsel for the parties, this court finds substance in the submission of learned State counsel. The prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded on two counts; firstly the order taking cognizance has been challenged belatedly and secondly the learned Magistrate on being prima facie satisfied took cognizance of offence against the petitioner. This court, however, cannot lose sight of the aspect as to whether the petitioner has been remanded in the instant case as yet or not as the case is of 1993 and petitioner is said to be in Muzaffarpur Jail since last 16 years. As the court did not get proper information on this count, I direct that if the petitioner has not been produced in the instant case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, he would be produced forthwith. It appears that production warrant has been - 3 - KHAN issued way back in the year 1993. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur as well as district administration, Muzaffarpur will see that the petitioner is produced before the Chapra Court for the purpose of remand if he has not already been remanded. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to both the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Muzaffarpur and Chapra at the cost of the petitioner. (S.P.Singh,J)