IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.172 of 2008 ASHOK YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Sanjay Kr. Jha For Opposite Party : Mr. Dilip Kumar, JC to GP I 5 07.05.2008 In this writ petition petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing his release upon quashing of his detention orders passed under the provisions of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The case of the petitioner is that he was the personal body guard of the Ex-MLA of the locality and upon defeat of the MLA in question, who belongs to a political party which is not in power now, the police at the instance of the people in the helm of affairs in the State is framing cases one after the another against the petitioner, who has no criminal history, in order to meet political grudge. It was contended that the manner in which the cases have been filed and as has been concluded that the petitioner is connected with the crimes alleged in those cases would - 2 - amply demonstrate that there has been a conscious effort to frame the petitioner. From the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner is said to be involved in thirteen cases. Admittedly, the petitioner, at the time when the impugned order was passed, was in jail custody. It has not come on record of the writ petition as to in connection with which case the petitioner was taken in custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail in most of the cases but for want of particulars he could not identify in which of the cases the petitioner has been granted bail and what kind of bail. Apart from stating that the petitioner was the personal body guard of the Ex-MLA, the petitioner has not indicated in the petition anything about his status. It is not known whether the petitioner was at all remunerated for the services rendered by him to the Ex-MLA and if so what was the quantum of such remuneration and whether the same was sufficient for meeting his expenses. It has also not come on record that after the employer of the petitioner was defeated in the election in 2005 whether the petitioner was - 3 - retained in employment of personal body guard and if not what the petitioner was doing to meet his expenses. In a situation of this nature it would not be possible for this Court to hold that the Police deliberately wanted to frame the petitioner as a political vendetta. The application is, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.) AAhmad/