Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39013 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Singh S/O Late Ram Briksh Singh, Resident Of Village- Tepa, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chitranjan Sharma S/O Sri Saryug Singh, Resident Of Village- Tepa, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 20-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.9.2011 passed in S.T. No. 272 of 2011 arising out of Tekari P.S. Case No. 53/1994 whereby and whereunder the court below has rejected the application of discharge. 3. From the F.I.R. it appears that the occurrence is alleged to have been committed on 13.6.1994 making an allegation that co-villager Dinesh Singh, Kaushal Sharma and Krishan Ballabh Singh along with ten unknown persons came at the door of the informant armed with country made pistol and asked the informant to withdraw the case. But the opposite party No. 2 kept silence whereupon Kaushal Sharma ordered to kill him. Thereafter, Dinesh Singh and Kirshan Ballabh Singh resorted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39013 of 2011 (2) dt.20-09-2012 2 / 3 2 firing aiming to O.P. No. 2 which hit to Guddi, sister of the informant. The case was not registered due to territorial jurisdiction and the same was forwarded to Tekari Police Station where again his fardbeyan was recorded and the case was instituted as Tekari P.S. Case No. 53 of 1994. In that fardbeyan, the name of the petitioner has surfaced. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that at the initial version, the petitioner’s name was absent, but at the subsequent stage, the name of the petitioner was added. He further submits that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was on duty at Ara and he was not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the statement made in the subsequent fardbeyan, is an improvement of the earlier statement, where the petitioner was not named as an accused but for the reason best known to the informant, his name was also added in the subsequent fardbeyan. He further submits that the informant in his statement [STATUTE] ourt below has wrongly refused to discharge the petitioner and passed the order impugned. 5. The counsel for the State has submitted that the court below while passing the order impugned has considered the several paragraphs of the case diary and found sufficient materials Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39013 of 2011 (2) dt.20-09-2012 3 / 3 3 available on record for coming to a conclusion of strong suspicion. He further submits that at the stage of the framing of the charge, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the materials which are sufficient for inferring strong suspicion are sufficient for rejection of the discharge application. 6. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court of the view that the court below while passing the impugned order did not act illegally as the court below has considered the several paragraphs of the case diary and also considered the law that has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and did not find any merit in the discharge application and rejected the same. 7. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 164

Statute Text:
Section 164 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment by public servant of the offences defined in the last two preceding clauses with reference to himself. Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988