Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35593 of 2010 ====================================================== Raj Kumar Mahto .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mr. Bhavesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, Additional P.P.Incharge ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 2 24-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16.10.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 72/2008 whereby and where under the petitioner including others have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the nature of the order does suggest that it happens to be out and out a mechanical approach of the learned Lower Court on the facts and that happens to be the reason behind that the learned lower Court was very much confused with regard to status of the accused wherever the name of the petitioner comes, that had subsequently been added which the order impugned itself speaks. There is also Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35593 of 2010 (2) dt.24-04-2012 2 / 2 2 not proper consideration of the materials what ever has been collected during course of investigation by the police with regard to the petitioner. So it is submitted that the order impugned is fit to be set aside. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned Additional P.P. that for the present purpose only prima-facie case has to be searched out which the order impugned does suggest and accordingly, no interference is required at the present stage. After going through the order impugned, it gives a clear cut impression that the learned lower Court was very much confused with regard to status of the petitioner that is itself visualized as in the operative portion of the order at first part petitioner has been shown as a innocent while at the latter part, he has been summoned to face trial. Therefore, there happens to be conflicting opinion expressed by the learned lower Court under same stroke, which can not be permitted to exist furthermore. Consequent there upon the order dated 16.10.2009 is setaside. Thus petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Sudha/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, 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.