IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5965 of 2009 1. SRI BHAGWAN RAI. 2. SHATRUGHNA RAI. BOTH SONS OF RAM BAHADUR RAI. 3. NANDU RAI, SON OF CHHABILA RAI. 4. KAMESHWAR RAI, SON OF BIGAN RAI. 5. LALLAN RAI, SON OF DUDH NATH RAI. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- KATEYA, POLICE STATION- JANTA BAZAR, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 14.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioners have filed this application challenging the order dated 27.1.2009 wherein the Court below has refused to discharge them for the offences alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 307/34, 147, 148, 149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a case and counter case and the allegations made in the First Information Report against the petitioners is that petitioner no. 3 had fired which has led to an injury on the wrist of the informant’s brother. It is said that the Investigating Officer while examining the injured has found 2 that the right hand was fully plastered. On the basis of the findings of the Investigating Officer, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations appear prima facie untrue and the story about firing with the intention to kill under Section 307 is not made out in the facts of this case. However, considering the injury report and also the allegations in the First Information Report, this Court cannot at this stage come to a finding regarding the intention of the accused persons specially in view of the fact that this aspect would have to be tested by evidence led in Court by both the parties, considering that there is a case and counter case with regard to the same occurrence. Besides which the petitioners would be at liberty to demonstrate before the Trial Court by his evidence, medical evidence, documents and through their arguments that no case is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and even though the case would be triable by the Sessions Court, the Court would always be at liberty to come to a 3 finding with respect to the offence made out after the evidence is led. In the result this application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)