Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29298/2013disposed

Barak Prasad @ Nand Kishore Prasad And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-07-25Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29298 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -210 Year- 2004 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Barak Prasad @ Nand Kishore Prasad S/O Late Shiv Pd Sah @ Sukhal Sah

2. Rudal Mahto son of Ratan Mahto

3. Pramod Sah son of Late Sahdeo Sah

4. Dina Nath Prasad son of Late Sheo Prasad Sah

5. Prakash Sah @ Om Prakash Sah son of Late Sheo Prasad Sah

6. Binod Sah son of Dhurub Sah

7. Lal Bihari Sah son of Ramayan Sah

8. Bhagrasan Sah son of Darbari Sah

9. Brihaspata Yadav @ Brihaspati Yadav son of Bhagwan Yadav

10. Yogendra Sah son of Singhashan Sah

11. Ramayan Sah son of Singhashan Sah

12. Vyas Yadav son of Babu Lal Sah

13. Vikash Sah son of Banarsi Prasad

14. Chotak Sah son of Late Sheo Prasad Sah

15. Narad Sah son of Late Bhagwat Sah

16. Rikhi Sah son of Late Bhagwat Sah

17. Bacha Sah son of Late Bhagwat Sah All Resident Of Village- Amathia, P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Naushad Ahmad son of Late Hoda Ansari Resident Of Village/MohallaAmathia, P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. In this case vide order dated 2.5.2016 while directing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29298 of 2013 (4) dt.25-07-2016 2/2 for issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2 a report was called for from the court below regarding the stage of the case which has been received and kept on record. The report dated 5.5.2016 suggests that in this case charges have already been framed and case is fixed for evidence whereas the present petition was filed against the order of rejection of discharge petition. Since charge has already been framed there is no reason to further examine the matter.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T