IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.318 of 2010 SRI MUKESH KUMAR OJHA, S/O. Sri Nagendra Nath Ojha, Resident of village – Murthan, P.O. – Parmanandpur, P.S. – Sonepur, District – Saran. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Zonal I.G. Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar. 5. The Superintendent of Police, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar. 6. The Officer in Charge, P.S. – Sonepur, District – Saran, Bihar. 7. Sri Kashi Nath Ojha, S/O. Sri Nagendra Nath Ojha. 8. Sri Avinash Chandra Ojha @ Maheshwar Ojha, S/O. Sri Nagendra Nath Ojha. 9. Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, S/O. Sri Kashi Nath Ojha. 10. Sri Agendra Nath Ojha @ Dullu, S/O. Sri Avinash Chandra Ojha. 11. Sri Dipak Kumar Ojha, S/O. Sri Avinash Chandra Ojha. 12. Sri Roushan Kumar Ojha, S/O. Sri Avinash Chandra Ojha. 13. Sri Ranjeet Kumar Ojha, S/O. Sri Avinash Chandra Ojha. 14. Sri Nagendra Nath Ojha, S/O. Late Kailash Nath Ojha. All resident of village Murthan, P.O. – Parmanandpur, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran, Bihar. ………… Respondent. 2nd Set. 15.Branch Manager, State Bank of India, P.O. – Parmanandpur, P.S. – Sonepur, District – Saran. …. Respondent 3rd. Set Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Alok, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 7 to 13 :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 14 :- Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Neeraj nandan, G.P. – 18. 05/ 16.03.2011 Heard the parties. Petitioner is son of respondent no. 14. He has preferred this criminal writ petition to secure release of 2 respondent no. 14 from the custody of other brothers of the petitioner and some grand children of respondent no. 14 who have been impleaded as respondents. It is admitted position that during the pendency of this criminal writ petition respondent no. 14 has shifted his residence and is living with the petitioner of his own free will. In that view of the matter, the prayer made in this criminal writ petition is clearly infructuous. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. Kundan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)