( 2026:JHHC:9394 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 380 of 2025 Banshi Dhar Shukla, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Resident of Devi Mandap Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through C.B.I. 2. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, P.O.+P.S.+District-Patna (Bihar) 3. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Kumar Amar Singh, Son of Not known, Inspector of Police, C.B.I./S.P.E./Patna, Investigating Officer of R/C 30 (S) 1993 R/o Village Vishawtal, P.S. Jahanabad P.O. Jahanabad, District- Jahanabad, (Bihar) --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay --- For the Petitioner: In person For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Ms. Shreya Shukla, AC to ASGI --- 06 / 01.04.2026 Heard Mr. Banshi Dhar Shukla, who is appearing in person and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the C.B.I. to re-investigate R.C. Case No. 30 (s)/93-Patna registered on the basis of the direction passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6853 of 1993 on the basis of a Joint Registrar note dated 15.04.1993 and 05.03.1993 and one Advocate letter dated 08.04.1993. 3. It has been submitted by the petitioner in person that the documents which led to institution of the case was never before the C.B.I. and therefore, re-investigation into the case instituted by the C.B.I. is necessary for the ends of justice. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI has submitted that though the petitioner was convicted by the C.B.I. Court but subsequently in Cr. ( 2026:JHHC:9394 ) Revision No.994 of 2006 the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. 5. It has also been submitted that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court. 6. It appears that on the basis of a forged order of bail which came to the notice of the Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5317/1992(R) an enquiry was conducted which came to a conclusion that a racket was going on related to forged orders of the Court. 7. The matter was referred to the C.B.I. pursuant to which R.C. Case No. 30 (s) of 1993 was registered. Investigation was completed and in course of trial the petitioner was convicted. The petitioner had preferred an appeal being 144 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi against which revision was preferred being Cr. Revision No. 994 of 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2023 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. Despite the petitioner having been finally acquitted by the learned revisional court, he has preferred the present writ application with the prayer for re- investigation by the C.B.I. in the case in which he was initially convicted on the basis of some documents which were not available with the C.B.I. including the note of the Joint Registrar. It would be apparent that the case was instituted in the year 1993 and the petitioner has approached this Court after almost 32 years with a frivolous prayer and that too after the revisional court had set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the petitioner. The grounds taken by the petitioner in this writ application are not at all entertainable in the ( 2026:JHHC:9394 ) background facts and circumstances of the case apart from the inordinate delay in approaching this Court and consequently having found no merit in this writ application, the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending I.A. stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) 1st April, 2026 P.K.S. Uploaded