IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57619 of 2007 BIRENDRA KUMAR @ RAJA, SON OF JASWANT SISNGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LASKARIPUR, P.S. – KANTI, DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. …………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE S.D.O. (WEST), MUZAFFARPUR. …………………. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 02 02.04.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Case No. M 607 of 2007 by which a show cause has been issued that why he should not be bound to execute a bond of Rs.2,00000 (two lacs) with one sureties of the same amount be executed for a period of three years for keeping good behaviour. The learned Magistrate take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is an accused in Kanti P.S. Case No. 20 of 1999, 106 of 2001 and 18 of 2007 and has also alleged to have fired. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and the cases mentioned for taking into consideration for passing the impugned order are the cases regarding land dispute and those cases have either been 2 compromised or concerned with civil dispute and further the petitioner has not been convicted in any case and the report of the Officer In Charge which is Annexure – 2. This report of the Officer-in-Charge to the Superintendent of Police also mentioned these facts and has been reported that the allegation of murder and firing has not been established, however, three years is going to elapse from the date of impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no any report against the petitioner during this period and that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is convicted in any case neither the impugned order mention any conviction in any criminal case against the petitioner, hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances merely because three cases have established which are of the year 1999 and of the year 2001 and third is of the year 2007 and hence, on these basis it can not be said that the petitioner is habitual offender and moreover in none of these cases the petitioner has been convicted and there is nothing to suggest any conviction and hence the impugned order is set aside, hence, the ground for initiating the proceeding is 3 not established and hence, the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)