IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.679 of 2008 1. Vinod Ram S/O Ram Singar Ram 2. Ram Prakash Ram S/O Ram Das Ram 3. Maneger Ram S/O Ram Chandra Ram 4. Jagjivan Ram S/O Ramayan Ram 5. Manoj Ram S/O Ramayan Ram, All residents of Village, Damodara, P.S. Guthani, Distt-Siwan ………… Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Siwan. 7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Siwan. 8. The Officer Incharge, Siwan. 9. The Superintendent of Police, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Cell, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 10. The Inspector of Police (Investigating officer of Guthani P.S. Case No. 33/98 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Cell, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna….. O.Ps ---------------------------------- For petitioners:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For State:- AC. To AAG-3 --------- 5/ 20/12/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Also gone through the prayer under main petition as well as made under I.A. No. 2416/2011. Earlier on the Fardbeyan of Ravindra Pandey Guthani P.S. case No. 33/1998 was registered under Section 147,148,149, 452, 324, IPC ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act 2 and 27 of the Arms Act wherein petitioner including others has been arrayed as an accused. During course of investigation, all the accused persons have raised their false implication on account of illegal activity of the informant taking the police in his collusion to dispossess the petitioner from his land which was illegally grabbed by the informant and for that representation was made before the DIG who had referred the matter to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cell and the matter was thoroughly enquired into and then report was submitted (Annexure-2). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the S.P. brushing aside the aforesaid report directed for submission of final form against the petitioners which accordingly was submitted by the police and on the basis thereof cognizance has been taken and for the present the trial is pending for examination of witnesses. It has further been submitted that the learned lower court be directed to call for Annexure-2 and further admit it and then further investigation be directed so that petitioner should get justice followed with submission of final report against the petitioner. State by filing counter affidavit has raised the 3 maintainability of instant petition. It has further been submitted on behalf of the State that prayer of the petitioner in consonance with stage of the proceeding did not justify and so the same cannot be allowed. As itself submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stage of the case happens to be for evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly, submitted that Annexure-2 did not proceed with in accordance with Chapter-XII of the Cr.P.C., therefore, for the present it appears to be out of consideration. However, it may be used by the defence at an appropriate stage. In the aforesaid background, the prayer in its entirety, does not appeal. Consequent thereupon, petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)