IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31653 of 2008 RAM BABU RAI, SON OF LATE VISHUNDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE USHARI KALA, POLICE STATION ISHUAPUR, DISTRICT CHAPRA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAGENDRA TIWARI, SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR OJHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIPRAHIYA, P.S. ISHUAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. 3. SATYANARAYAN PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE DINATH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHALISHPUR, P.S. BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN 4. KRISHNA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE DINATH PRASAD YADAV 5. CHANDRIKA PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE DINATHA PRASAD YADAV 6. TAPESHWER PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE RAMPUKAR RAI 7. BHARTHARI YADAV, SON OF LATE JAGU RAI OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 4 TO 7 ARE REISDENT OF VILLAGE KHALISHPUR, P.S. BANIYAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 9.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. (IV), Chapra has discharged the accused persons for offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of discharge. However, I find that cognizance was taken against the accused persons on 21.3.2007 under Sections 364 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court while passing the order of discharge has not considered or given reasons as to why the Court has discharged the accused persons under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, I direct that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. (IV), Chapra should pass fresh orders with regard to this aspect of the matter after giving opportunities to both the parties in this case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)