IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5677 of 2010 LAV KUMAR @ LOV KUMAR SON OF RAM CHANDRA PRASAD AZAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAKHTIARPUR, POLICE STATION- BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.2.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has made a prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.840 of 2009 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Barh. It is evident from the record that the petitioner who is father of co-accused Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar was made accused in a case registered under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. Since accused persons were absconding, the properties were attached. Though the petitioner has appeared before the court, the co-accused, who is non-else but the son of the petitioner, has not appeared till date. The petitioner in the meanwhile filed a petition before the court below for release of the attached property. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observing in his order dated 24.11.2009 kept the petition - 2 - pending till the appearance of son of the petitioner, namely, Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar, who is co-accused of the case. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order nor it appears to be an abuse of process of law and as such I am not in favour of exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is required to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will take steps to trace out his son and if traced, he will be produced before the court below or he will take any other appropriate steps. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it appears that his son Sushil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar is no more and keeping in view the fact that F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2003 after lapse of more than seven years, presumption may arise regarding his death. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am not inclined in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, petition is rejected. - 3 - N.H./ If so advised, petitioner may file a petition in this regard and the court below will take appropriate steps, if such a petition is filed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)