IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.676 of 2009 SATISH KUMAR @ NANHAKI …… PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 3.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,AHIYAPUR POLICE STATION, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2/ 31.08.2009 Heard Mr.Najmul Hoda for the petitioner, and Mr.Harendra Prasad Singh, learned Government Advocate No.6. The petitioner is an accused and has been chargesheeted in Ahiyapur P.S.Case No. 169 of 2008, G.R.No. 1266 of 2008, wherein he is facing trial under the provisions of Sections 413 and 444 of the Indian Penal Code at Muzaffarpur. The petitioner’s application has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. He preferred Cr.Misc.No. 43585 of 2008 which has been disposed of by order dated 15.4.2009 (annexure-4), whereby the petitioner has not been released on bail and, as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, he was permitted to withdraw the same in order to prefer writ petition in this Court. Hence the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that the petitioner was not produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a result of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 30.4.2008, issuing show cause notice to the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits before us that the petitioner may be directed to be released from custody on the ground that his production was in violation of the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also relies on the order dated 10.7.2008, passed by a Division Bench of this Court (annexure-3), in Cr.W.J.C.No. 487 of 2008 (Vishal Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last sixteen months. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner’s applications for bail did not found favour 3 with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, learned Sessions Judge, as well as this Court. All contentions were available to him including his non-production in accordance with law, before the courts. The contentions will therefore, deemed to have been raised and rejected by three courts. Secondly, the aforesaid order dated 10.7.2008, stood on a different footing. That was a writ petition preferred by a juvenile less than 18 years of age and, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to release him on bail. This writ petition is not on behalf of a juvenile. The petitioner seems to be engaged in serious offences. Therefore, we are not inclined to release the petitioner. However, the petitioner has remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, if he prefers the same in future, the same shall be decided on merits, completely ignoring the observations made in the present order which is confined to the disposal of the present writ petition. 4 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S.K.Katriar, J.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)