Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12039 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ghanshyam Kumar Rai alias Budhan Rai 2. Aamad Rai alias Aamad Kumar Both sons of Devendra Rai. 3. Dinanath Rai alias Munna Rai son of Amirnath Rai. All of village Rahua P.S Jandaha District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 02-07-2012 Heard Sri Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Ehtashmuddin Khan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 5th, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2009. By the said order, learned Trial Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioners. In this case, earlier a Bench of this Court, by Order dated 09.12.2010, had summoned for the Case Dairy, which is on record. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12039 of 2010 (3) dt.02-07-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Case Diary, there is no direct evidence against the petitioners. Only on suspicion, the petitioners were made accused. He submits that in Case Dairy, there is material, which indicates that some has suspected involvement of the petitioners. On the plea that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners, a prayer was made for setting-aside the order of rejection of discharge petition. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petition. He submits that in the present case, F.I.R., vide Jandaha P.S. Case No. 54 of 2008, was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against unknown accused persons. However, during investigation, materials were collected, showing involvement of the petitioners. From the impugned order, it appears that learned Trial Judge, while rejecting discharge petition, has relied upon the statement made in para nos. 22, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 of the Case Dairy, showing involvement of the petitioners. After going through the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that learned Trial Judge, while rejecting discharge petition, has not committed any error. At the time of the charge, only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case exists or Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12039 of 2010 (3) dt.02-07-2012 3 / 3 3 not. The word, ‘prima facie’ has elaborately been discussed in a case reported in 1996 Criminal Law Journal 2448 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa). In para nos. 30, 31 & 32 of the Judgment, the word, ‘prima facie’ has been discussed, which indicates that even on strong suspicion, charges can be framed. In this case, there is material to show involvement of the petitioners. The Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the discharge petition, learned court below has not committed any error. The petition stands dismissed. Anay/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.