IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.821 of 2007 OM PRAKASH DAS S/O SRI DHORALAL DAS, R/O VILL- CHHIHANTAR, P.S. MANER DISTRICT PATNA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA AZAD NAGAR, AND P.S. MANER, DIST. PATNA --- COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MUKESH RAM S/O SRI RAVINDRA RAM 3. RAVINDRA RAM S/O LATE CHANDRAKANT RAM 4. JANAK PRASAD RAM S/O LATE BADRI RAM 5. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI RAM SEWAK RAM 6. RABINDRA RAI SON OF WAKIL RAI 7. RAJ KUMAR RAM SON OF SRI RABINDRA RAM 8. SATISH KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM SEWAK RAM 9. SANJU KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM SEWAK RAM 10. AJIT KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM SEWAK RAM 11. RABI KUMAR SON OF SRI RAM SEWAK RAM 12. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SRI RABINDRA RAI 13. ANIL KUMAR S/O RAM SEWAK RAI. ALL R/O MOHALLA-AZAD NAGAR AT P.S. MANER, DIST. PATNA. --ACCUSED/OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner : Mr. Girindra Mohan Thakur, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP ----------- 06 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and opposite parties. Petitioner, who is complainant of complaint case no. 825C of 2006, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2007, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, whereby learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials placed on record, in course of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), has come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case and thereby dismissed the complaint in terms of Section 203 of the Code. Informant of the case lodged the aforesaid complaint 2 alleging therein that the accuseds of F.I.R. lodged by him had obtained bail on furnishing fake bailors. It was alleged that some of the bailors furnished by the accuseds (opposite parties herein) were dead. In support of complaint he examined himself on S.A. No other witness was produced. Learned court below, on a consideration of the materials on record, found that neither the death certificate nor any supporting document was/were brought on record substantiating the said allegation. Consequently the complaint was dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties informed this Court that subsequently opposite parties herein were directed to furnish fresh bail bond(s) which they have already furnished which was/were verified and accepted by the Court below. This Court, in view of these facts, is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)