Jainendra Kumar Singh @ Chunnu Singh And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15758 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2007 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Jainendra Kumar Singh @ Chunnu Singh Son Of Nand Kumar Singh

2. Smt. Usha Devi Wife Of Jainendra Kumar Singh @ Chunnu Singh. Both Are Resident Of Village Rukunpura, Police Station- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.19565 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2007 Thana -C.B.I CASE District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Dharambir Kumar @ Dharmi Son of Sri Yugeshwar Sinha

2. Shobha Devi Wife of Dharambir Kumar @ Dharmi Both are resident of Village Kasba, Police Station Bakhtiyarpur, DistrictPatna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Through C.B.I.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.15758 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha (Sccbi) (In Cr.Misc. No.19565 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha (Sccbi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-08-2016 Heard Sri Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

In both the petitions order impugned is the same and as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15758 of 2014 (5) dt.09-08-2016 2/2 such both the petitions were taken up together. In both the petitions petitioners had filed petition for discharge in Case No. R.C. 27(A) of 2007 corresponding to Special Case No. 64 of 2011 registered for the offence under section 120B , 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (2), 13(1) (a) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without any material the petitioners have been made accused and it was a case for discharge, whereas on going through the impugned order and material available on record, the court is satisfied that there is no error warranting interference. Both the petitions stand dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T