6 Jan 2012
Order issued
ConcludedThe Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2012) 2 PLJR 843
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2012-0022East Champaran, BiharJudgment 6 January 2012
Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Constable of the Motihari District Police was departmentally proceeded for complicity in Raxaul P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002, the abduction of a Raxaul resident for ransom, in which his home telephone was used for ransom demands and the victim was confined at his house. The Superintendent of Police initially withheld three increments, but the Director General-cum-Inspector General enhanced the penalty to dismissal under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual. The Patna High Court found that the constable had accepted the guilt finding, declined opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, and was named by a co-accused as an active participant. The Court held the enhancement was made within reasonable time and that he did not deserve retention in the police force, and dismissed the writ petition. His Letters Patent Appeal and review were also dismissed, making the dismissal final.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 6 January 2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 7410 of 2007, the Patna High Court (Coram: V.N. Sinha, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Motihari District Police.
- Register number
- BR 05 CW 0001
- Case reference
- C.W.J.C. No. 7410 of 2007 / (2012) 2 PLJR 843
- Court and date
- Patna High Court (Coram: V.N. Sinha, J.), 6 January 2012
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Motihari District Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Petitioner having not questioned his complicity in the crime of abduction in the initial punishment order, in my opinion, he is not well advised to question his complicity in the same crime when punishment has been enhanced. In any view …” (at para 6)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Patna High Court judgment dated 6 January 2012 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“Petitioner having not questioned his complicity in the crime of abduction in the initial punishment order, in my opinion, he is not well advised to question his complicity in the same crime when punishment has been enhanced. In any view …” (para 6)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.