Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11799 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11799 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Raj Yadav Son of Late Jawahar Yadav, Resident Of Village - Garhwa Simra, P.S. - Simra, District - Aurangabad. 2. Bharat Yadav Son of Ram Raj Yadav, Resident of Village - Garhwa Simra, P.S. - Simra, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arvind Yadav Son of Naresh Yadav, Resident of Village -Nakti, P.S. - Deo, Distt. - Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Meena Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 16-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.2.2011 by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for offences under [STATUTE] . The counsel for the petitioners submits that in paragraph 20 of the case diary it has been recorded by the Police that the victim herself mentioned about consuming the poison because her brother was not allowed to meet her though he had come to her place. The Court has disbelieved the theory. The charge-sheet was filed under [STATUTE] . and the court Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11799 of 2011 (2) dt.16-07-2012 below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and thereafter on the basis of different paragraphs of case diary, the court below has refused to discharge the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the informant was present during the occurrence and the F.I.R. was lodged after much delay. The submission of the petitioner was contradicted by the counsel for the State. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned as the court below has perused the different paragraphs of the case diary and has found that there is a strong suspicion for offences under [STATUTE] against the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points before at the time of framing of charge. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.