IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10796 of 2001 AMAR KUMAR SINGH @ AMAR SINGH @ JATTU SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 16.8.2010 Heard Shri Ashwinin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nityanand Tiwari, APP for the state. The petition seeks quashing of order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude- III, Munger in Sessions Case no. 164 of 1999 by which the learned judge directed framing of charge under sections 364/34 of IPC against the petitioner. By the same order, the learned judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution statement, in short, was that the petitioner along with others had abducted the brother of the informant, namely, Puneshwar Triloki alias Puneshwar Sharma, in order to causing his death or disposing him of in such a way as to be presumed to be murdered. It was alleged that the said Puneshwar Sharma had illicit relationship with Utpala Bharti, who happened to be the wife of this petitioner and, as such, the petitioner was suspected to have committed the offence. The informant stated that he was informed by one Hriday Narayan Sharma that he had seen the accused persons and the brother of the informant at Jamalpur railway station together. During the course of investigation, the said Hriday Narayan Sharma was produced before a Magistrate for recording his 2 statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and that statement is Annexure 2 in which he has given one line statement that he did not know anything about the occurrence. The case diary which was made over to the accused under section 207 of the Cr.P.C., has been produced before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of hearing, I have perused the statement of different persons recorded by the police during investigation. What appears from such perusal of the case diary is that witnesses have stated that the said Puneshwar Triloki alias Puneshwar Sharma, the brother of the informant, had rather taken away the wife of the present petitioner and was seen with the lady at Jamalpur railway station. There is nothing substantial on record except that Puneshwar Sharma and Utpala Bharti were seen at Jamalpur station. Thus, I find complete lack of material so as to sustaining the order under challenge. In the result, the order impugned is quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)