IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.769 of 2008 ----- 01. The Union Of India through Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi. 02. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur [Bihar]. 03. The Addl. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur [Bihar] 04. The I.G., C.R.P.F. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Respondents- Appellant Versus 01. Raj Kumar son of Shri Sitaram Rao, Resident of vill-Lowkariya, P.S. Bairiya, Distt- West Champaran, Force No.035192127 02. Anuj Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, Resident of village- Gangasagar, P.S.Makhdumpur, Distt-Jehanabad,[Bihar] Force No.035190356 03. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Son of Shri Rama Shankar Pandey, Resident of vill-Bhoj Chapar, P.S.Bishambharpur, Distt- Gopalganj, Force No.035191513 04. Kaushal Choubhey, Son of Shri Yogendra Choubey, resident of Vill-Nandan, P.S. dumraon, Distt-Buxar, Force No.035192288. 05. Abhimanyu Kumar, Son of Shri Mithilesh Singh, resident of village-Ghataro Tola, P.S. Karthala, Distt- Vaishali, Force No.035191745. 06. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Seryu Singh, resident of Vill- Dhansoi, P.S.Dhansoi, Distt-Buxar, Force No.035192038. 07. Bablu Kumar Jha, Son of Shri Subh Kant Jha, resident of village- Hatani, P.S. Ghorgardiha, Distt-Madhubani, Force No.0351206502 08. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shri Jay Narayan Singh, resident of vill-Samaul, P.S./Distt-Madhubani, Force No.035192056 09. Kula Nand Jha, Son of Late Shri Shnakar Jha, resident of Vill- adharpur, Distt-Darbhanga, Force No.035192225. Petitioners- Respondents 10. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. 11. The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. Performa Respondent … Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr.Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate -------- - 2 - P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 30th September, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of 68 days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No. 6090 of 2008) has been made. 2. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the impugned order does not call for any interference and the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 3. The single judge has considered the matter in right perspective and the order does not appear to us to be legally flawed. 4. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. This disposes of I.A. no. 6090 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil