IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.96 of 2008 SANTOSH YADAV S/O RAJBALI YADAV --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM CHANDRA YADAV SON OF SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD YADAV --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner :Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate. ----------- 03 23.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by learned Fast Track Court no.II, Gaya in Sessions Trial no. 42 of 2007/ 225 of 2007 whereby his application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been considered and rejected. Petitioner is facing charge(s) punishable under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 307 of the Penal Code. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that when the informant was going on a motorcycle the petitioner and others intercepted him. It is alleged that at the orders of the petitioner his brother fired which hit the scapular region of the informant Further allegation is that the petitioner removed Rs. 25000/- from the pocket of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation allegation with regard to removal of Rs. 25000/- has been completely disbelieved. It is contended that the present prosecution has been lodged because of previous animosity. It is contended that the father of the petitioner had purchased a piece of 2 land several years ago. Recently the brother of the informant had purchased the same piece of land. It is thus contended that owing to land dispute he has been enmeshed in the case with these allegations part of which has already been disbelieved. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that learned trial Court with reference to specific paragraphs of the case diary has found and noted that there is/are sufficient evidence on record justifying framing of charge. It is contended that the Doctor who examined the informant found bullet embedded in the wound which was surgically removed. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record including the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that no patent illegality has been committed by the Court in view of the scope of jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym. ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)