Ashok Agarwal @ Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46706 of 2013 ====================================================== Ashok Agarwal @ Ashok Kumar Agarwal S/O Late Sanwarmal Agarwal, resident of Mirchaibari, P.S.- Katihar (Sahayak), District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Manish For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. AC to GA-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA-2.

The petitioner, in the present petition, has made a prayer for quashing mainly of an order dated 03.10.2013 passed in Sessions Trial no.499/2013. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge.

Sri Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to certain paragraphs of the case diary, submits that of course in the F.I.R. there is specific allegation of firing, however during investigation the fact had emerged that while the bodyguard was cleaning his rifle, firing had taken place and, as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46706 of 2013 (5) dt.12-07-2016 2/2 such, it is a fit case for discharge the petitioner, whereas learned State Counsel, opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that there is no apparent error in the impugned order warranting interference. He submits that there is specific accusation of firing and after investigation, the accusation against the petitioner was found true and only thereafter chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and other.

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After perusing the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that it is not a case for interference with the impugned order.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U