IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.5429 of 2011
Sheo Nandan Prasad @ Sheo Nandan Chaudhary & Anr
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Anr
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.
———–
2 12.10.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed
which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as learned A.P.P.
Earlier petitioners had challenged the
order dated 27.01.2011 passed by learned lower
court through which his prayer for discharge was
rejected and subsequently, by supplementary
affidavit also challenged the order dated
23.08.2011 whereby and where under the learned
court had framed charge against the petitioners
and others under Section 323/34, 341/34,
379/34, 504/34, 324/34, 325/34 of the I.P.C.
During course of assailing the composite
order, the learned counsel for the petitioners
impress upon the court to consider and scrutinize
2
the statement of the witnesses like a trial court,
which, for the present purpose, would not be in
spite of the fact that court is adjudicating upon
the matter under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Apart
from this, charge has already been framed,
consequent thereupon the trial is in progress. The
discrepancy and inconsistency having amongst
the statement of the witnesses which has been
highlighted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners would be a better recourse for the
petitioner to sack the testimony at an appropriate
stage but so far present stage is concerned, the
same is not going to lean in his favour.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of in the
light of aforesaid observation.
PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)