IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33348 of 2011
Md. Ekramul Haque @ Md. Ekram Abdul Karim Vill Maulanadih Ps
Chhabilapur Nalanda
.............. Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar
................. Opposite party
----------------------------------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Birendra Prasad, Advocate
For the State: Mrs. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P.
***************
02. 08.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional P.P.
Petitioner, Md. Ekramul Haque has
challenged the order of cognizance dated
16.08.2011 passed by learned CJM, Nalanda at
Biharsharif, whereby and whereunder he has been
summoned to face trial for an offence cognizable
under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 326 of the
IPC and 27 of the Arms Act in connection with
Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2011.
It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that although he happens to be named in
the FIR, witnesses have named him during course of
investigation, but being a government servant and
posted at Gopalganj, his plea was tested during
course of investigation and was found to be correct.
The Investigating Authority had found that on the
alleged date and time of occurrence he was at
2
Gopalganj and so after verifying his alibi, final report
was submitted against him. However, learned CJM
differing therefrom also summoned the petitioner. He
also submitted that when the complicity of petitioner
is ruled out by cogent and reliable evidence, which
has been tested during the course of investigation
then in that event, there was no occasion for the
learned CJM to differ from the conclusion arrived at.
As such the order impugned is fit to be set aside.
At the other hand, the learned APP
submitted that the learned lower court after going
through the materials available in the case diary
different from the opinion of the IO and summoned
the petitioner, which happens to be in accordance
with law and can not be interfered at this stage.
Be that as it may, the plea of alibi
happens to be the factual, which can be tested and
verified by the court during course of trial and for
that reason, I do not see any ground to interfere with
the order impugned, consequent thereupon petition
is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
SKM