MANAS KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition in this Court on 14.1.2003 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to punish the respondents, particularly, respondents 6, 7. 8 and 9 since they have illegally detained the petitioner in police custody without any valid order of remand and for directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for his illegal detention for three days and physical assault by respondents 6 to 9 in the police lockup at Hazipur Police Station, District Vaishali in the State of Bihar after the Bihar Re -organisation Act, 2000. It is seen that on the day this writ petition was moved, a proceeding initiated on the basis of letter written by the uncle of the petitioner was pending in the High Court of Patna and it had been numbered as Cr. W.J.C. No. 44 of 2003. It is seen from the order in that writ petition subsequently passed that there was a complaint against the alleged illegal detention of the writ petitioner. When the writ petition filed in this Court was taken up on 24.3.2003, this Court took the view that since the matter was within the seisin of the Patna High Court, it would be appropriate to leave the petitioner to make whatever claims he has in respect of the alleged incident to be made in the High Court of Patna. This writ petition was dismissed also finding that the claim for compensation was against officers in the State of Bihar, that the alleged assault took place within the State of Bihar, the alleged illegal confinement was also within the State of Bihar and therefore, this was a fit case where this Court should hold that it has no jurisdiction. Thus, the writ petition was rejected. This appeal is against that decision.

(2.) IT is seen that on the same day, namely, 24.3.2003, the High Court of Patna closed Cr. W.J.C. No. 44 of 2003, taking note of the stand of the police that the writ petitioner was picked up for questioning and brought for interrogation on 24.12.2002, to Hazipur and that on 25.12.2002, he was handed over to his father, Mr. P.K. Mishra and the petitioner executed a bond undertaking to appear for further questioning as and when it was required and held that no further direction was necessary in the light of this position. Thus, the Court disposed of the case noting that nothing survives for consideration in that case.