Satyendra Kumar Sinha @ Satyendra Kumar Shrivastava v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.240 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2002 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar Sinha @ Satyendra Kumar Shrivastava S/o Lare Ram Nandan Srivastava R/o village- Mirzapur, Post- Bharpura, P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nawnit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

There are some SR defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the SR Defects within two weeks from today.

Heard on merit.

This revision application is directed against the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge - cum - Sessions Judge, Muzaffapur in Paroo P.S. Case No. 75 of 2002 by which the learned Sessions Judge has refused to discharge the petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because he is said to be a registered owner of the motorcycle from which 13 kgs. of ganja has been allegedly recovered. It is his submission that he had already sold the vehicle in the year 1998 itself. Further submission of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.240 of 2022(2) dt.14-07-2022 2/2 learned counsel is that in this case there is no FSL report on record, therefore there is nothing to conclude that the alleged seized article was ganja. It is submitted that in such circumstances the learned Special Judge - cum - Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur should have discharged the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. Having regard to the submission noted hereinabove and on going through the impugned order, this court is of the considered opinion that at least for purpose of framing of charge there are sufficient materials exists in form of the admitted position that the petitioner happened to be the owner of the motorcycle from which 13 kgs. of Ganja has been recovered. The fact that he had sold the vehicle in the year 1998 may only be examined in course of trial. Further submission that there is no FSL report on record may be considered in course of trial only if the FSL report is not duly proved in course of evidence and what will be the effect of that is required to be considered by the learned trial court.

This application is, thus, no merit. It is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.