IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32407 of 2003 1. UGRA NARAYAN PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE MEGHU YADAV. 2. SUBODH YADAV, SON OF UGRA NARAYAN YADAV. 3. SANJAY YADAV, SON OF UGRA NARAYAN YADAV. 4. MANOJ KUMAR YADAV, SON OF UGRA NARAYAN YADAV. 5. SATOO YADAV @ SATYA NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF LATE MEGHU YADAV. 6. JAGDISH YADAV, SON OF LATE BAJNATH YADAV. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE:RASONK, P.S. MORKAHI, DISTRICT-KHAGARIA. ……………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. NARESH KUMAR YADAV, SON OF RAMDEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE:RASONK, P.S. MORKAHI, DISTRICT-KHAGARIA. ……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Senior Advocate & Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Neeraj Kumar alias Sanidh, Advocate. ----------- 4. 26.2.2009. The petitioners, who are F.I.R. named accused of Khagaria P.S. Case No.248 of 1998, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 5.9.2003 passed by Sri G. Chandrayan, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in the resultant Sessions Trial No.153 of 2000. The prosecution case in brief is that at about 10 P.M. the petitioners on the night of 13.6.1998 alongwith 20-22 unknown others variously armed with lethal weapons surrounded the house of the informant and resorted to firing. There was retaliating firing by the brother of the - 2 - informant whereupon the accused persons are said to have fled away. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that although they do not object to the framing of charge under other Sections, they certainly have objection of a charge being framed under Section 307 I.P.C. as from the allegations made in the written report and there being no injury having been caused to any one as also there being an absence of intention/ mens rea of killing, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out. Admittedly, the 7 F.I.R. named accused alongwith 20-22 unknown others variously armed with lethal weapons had surrounded the house of the informant at around 10P.M. in the night. Certainly such assemblage could not have been for the reasons of attending some function. Apparently, there appears to be a strong motive of such assemblage in the depth of night and that too with fire arms. Accused persons are also said to have fired from their fire arms. The cumulative effect clearly goes to show the intention of the petitioners and others to resort to commission of criminal acts. Injury or death may not have been caused to any members of the prosecution party but the intention is writ large in the acts of the petitioners and others. I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Sessions Court. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)