High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sahzad Khan &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 24 June, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Sahzad Khan &Amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 24 June, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   Cr.Misc. No.12778 of 2009
              1. SAHZAD KHAN
              2. SHIKANDAR KHAN SON OF LATE MD. KHAN
              3. CHHOTE KHAN SON OF SIKANDAR KHAN
              4. CHANDA KHATOON WIFE OF SOHRAB KHAN.
              5. NOORZAHA KHATOON WIFE OF SK. KHURSHID.
              6. SAHZIDA KHATOON DAUGHTER OF SHIKANDAR KHAN
              7. NASIMA KHATOON DAUGHTER OF SHIKANDAR KHAN.
              8. BUCHUN KHATOON WIFE OF SHAZAD KHAN
              9. SHAHZAHA KHATOON WIFE OF SK. MANZOOR
                 ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GHIWADHAUR, P.S.- HARSIDHI,
                DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN.
                                                Versus
             1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
             2. HASINA KHATOON WIFE OF SOHRAB KHAN DUAGHTER OF
                LATE RAHAMTULLAH KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
                HALKHORWA MOTIPUR, P.S.- JAGDISHPUR DISTRICT- EAST
                CHAMPARAN.
               For the petitioners        : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate
               For the State               Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.
                                              -----------

2 24.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

Petitioners are aggrieved by the revisional order dated

22.1.2009 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 88 of 2008 by learned Fast

Track Court no. II, Bettiah, West Champaran whereby the order

dated 15.3.2008 passed in Trial no. 1257 of 2008 (arising out of

Complaint Case no. 2153C of 2001) by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah has been affirmed. By the said

order, the application filed under Section 245 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners was considered

and rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the

impugned orders, fairly submits that although at the stage of

getting bail, a compromise was arrived at between husband and
2

wife and on the strength whereof bail was granted but

subsequently the complainant in her deposition before charge

has asserted that the accused(s) tortured and ill treated her.

Learned Court below, on consideration of the materials

available on record, have concurrently come to a conclusion that

there is/are sufficient material which would justify trial of the

petitioners.

This Court finds absolutely no illegality and/or infirmity

in the said order(s).

The application has no merit. It is accordingly

dismissed.

( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj