High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Prabhu Dayal &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar on 27 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Prabhu Dayal &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar on 27 September, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 Cr.Misc. No.23625 of 2009
               1. PRABHU DAYAL SAO, SON OF LATE KAMESHWAR SAO,
                  RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA BELISARAI, P.O., P.S. AND DISTT.
                  NAWADAH.
               2. DEV SHARAN SAO, SON OF CHANDRIKA SAO, RESIDENT OF
                  VILLAGE JAMUAWAN, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTT. GAYA.
               3. JAGO SAO, SON OF KARU SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
                  JADUPUR, P.S. NARDIGANJ, DISTT. NAWADAH.
               4. SANTOSH KUMAR @ SATISH KUMAR, SON OF JAGO SAO,
                  RESIDENT OF JADUPUR, P.S. NARDIGANJ, DISTT. NAWADAH.
               5. SANJIT PRASAD SAH @ SANJIT PD. SAO, SON OF SURENDRA
                  PD. SAO, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILL OF PRABHU DAYAL
                  SAO, P.S. AND DISTT. NAWADAH.
               6. SAVITRI DEVI, WIFE OF JOGI SAO @ BIBEKANAD PD.
                  RESIDENT OF GOVINDPUR BAZAR, P.S. GOVINDPUR, AT
                  PRESENT AT GOLA ROAD, TOWN/P.S. NAWADAH, DISTT.
                  NAWADAH.
                                                             ----- PETITIONERS.
                                              Versus
                THE STATE OF BIHAR                      ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES.
                                            -----------

2. 27.09.2010 Heard the parties.

The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated

23.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-1st), Nawadah, in

Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2005 by which he has refused to discharge the

petitioner in a case in which cognizance was taken under Sections 147,

307/149, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and

4(b) of the Explosive Substance Act.

Considering that the petitioners have placed reliance on the

counter version of the occurrence for assailing the order of non-discharge,

I am unable to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

The application is dismissed.

( Anjana Prakash, J.)
S.Ali