IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.524 of 2009 Chandrika Manjhi, son of late Phulena Manjhi, resident of Village- Madarpur, P.O. Madarpur via-Sahajitpur, P.S. Masrakh, District- Saran ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. S.P., Saran, Chapra. 3. Officer-in-Charge, Bhagwan Bazar, Police Station- Chapra, Saran. 4. Mr. A. Rawat, A.S.I., Bhagwan Bazar, Police Station,. Chapra, Saran --- Respondent Ist Set. 5. Ram Janam Singh, son of late Raghu Nandan Singh, resident of Village-Madarpur, P.O. Madarpur Via-Sahajitpur, P.S. Masrakh, District-Saran. 6. Raj Narain Pandey, son of late Sagar Pandey, resident of Village-Pakari, P.O. Pakari via Mashrakh, P.S. Masrakh, District-Saran. 7. Rameshwar Singh son of late Chandeshwar Singh 8. Rajdeo Singh, son of Ram Nandan Singh. 9. Lalan Mahto, son of Binda Mahto 10. Taras Mahto, son of Khedaru Mahto. 11. Sumit Kumar son of Rajeshwar Singh, respondent nos. 7 to 11 residents of Village- Nawada, P.O. Nawada, via Mashrakh, P.S. Mashrakh, District-Saran ---- Respondents 2nd Set ----Respondents. ----------- 6. 26.3.2010 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai for the petitioner, and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel No.21. This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to the police for production of the boy in question. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavits. We have perused the materials on 2 record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to be the Uncle of one Manoj Manjhi whose parents are dead. Manoj Manjhi was allegedly kidnapped on 6.11.2008, by the respondent second set. The petitioner filed a complaint petition on 7.11.2008, in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. It was on the same day ordered that the complaint petition be registered as a First Information Report. F.I.R. was accordingly drawn on 19.2.2009(Annexure-2). The allegations in the F.I.R. were investigated and the police has submitted final report bearing charge- sheet no.52 of 2010, dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure-A). It has been found to be a case of insufficient evidence. It further appears that the petitioner has already lodged a protest petition before the learned court below. In that view of the matter, we do not wish to proceed with the present writ petition. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his grievance under the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with these observations. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)