Md. Gulab Hussain And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19997 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2013 Thana -LAUKHA District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Md. Gulab Hussain son of Dil Mohammad

2. Md Jamshed Son of Md Manager,

3. Md Yushuff Son of Md Lsrayel @ Pahari, These all are residing at village Kamalpur, P.S.- Loukaha DesttMadhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Nirala(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-08-2016 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.K. Nirala, learned A.P.P. Three petitioners have approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 3.3.2014 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge 1st Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2014 arising out of Loukaha P.S. Case No. 24 of 2013 registered for the offence under section 364/ 307/ 511 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19997 of 2014 (2) dt.09-08-2016 2/2 petitioners and informant are co- villagers and in the F.I.R. none of the accused persons were named as accused. Even in the restatement the informant has not named the petitioners. However on third time his statement was recorded and in the said statement petitioners' name on the instance of enemy of the petitioners was given and thereafter the petitioners were implicated. It has emphatically been argued that save and except the statement of the informant there is no material to implicate the petitioners whereas Sri Nirala , learned A.P.P. opposing the prayer submits that from perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has noticed the submission which is being reiterated before this court and the learned Sessions Judge has referred number of paragraphs of the case diary to show that there is strong suspicion for proceeding against the petitioners.

In view of the facts and circumstances I do not find any error in the order impugned.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T