IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.746 of 2009 SONI DEVI, W/O MITHILESH KUMAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIRAHA, P.S. SHANKARPUR, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. ….PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHARSA 3. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, BHAGALPUR. 4. BHUSHAN SAH, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.S. NAUHATTA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 5. MITHILESH KUMAR SAH SON OF SRI BINDESHWARI SAH @ BINDA SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANIRAHA, P.S.SHANKARPUR, P.O. TENGRAHA, DISTRICT MADHEPURA ……RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 16.11.2009 Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma for the petitioner, and Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned Standing Counsel No.18. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the husband of the petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar Sah, who is allegedly serving sentence as a convict of Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1983(State of Bihar Vs. Gopal Sah & Ors.). According to the writ petition, one Bhushan Sah and others were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No.2 of 1983, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Saharsa. The same was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, whereafter Mithilesh Kumar Sah entered into an agreement with Bhushan Sah, whereby the former had agreed to represent himself as Bhushan Sah to serve out - 2 - the sentence. Accordingly, Mithilesh Kumar Sah surrendered and was taken into custody to serve out the sentence. The petitioner thereafter filed an application in this behalf leading to an enquiry which has revealed that Mithilesh Kumar Sah indeed acted as an imposter and falsely represented to be Bhushan Sah. The respondent authorities have, therefore, taken Bhushan Sah into custody to serve out the sentence(s). The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction that Mithilesh Kumar Sah may now be set at liberty. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavits wherein it is stated that the enquiry has revealed that Mithilesh Kumar Sah has acted as an imposter for unlawful gains, has been taken into custody, and a first information report has been lodged against both of them. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner has already filed an application in this behalf before the learned trial court. We are further of the view that this question raises an issue of fact. In that view of the matter, we would not like to proceed in the present writ petition. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court, if not already done, for appropriate relief. The writ petition is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn. It is made clear that the learned trial court - 3 - shall dispose of the matter completely ignoring the observations made in this order on facts. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )