IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.9820 OF 2009 1. CHANDESHWAR RAI, SON OF ANAND RAI 2. BACHU RAI, SON OF BINDESHWAR RAI 3. JAINANDAN RAI, SON OF NAGENDRA RAI @ SATAHU RAI 4. RAMBABU RAI, SON OF BINDESHWAR RAI 5. DHARMENDRA RAI, SON OF JAINANDAN RAI 6. RAM SOBHIT RAI, SON OF LATE GENA RAI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBARA, POLICE STATION BOCHAHA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ******** 2 10/12/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.02.2009 by which the Court below has refused to discharge the petitioners in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence had taken place because of land dispute. It is stated that the petitioners had tied a rope around the informant and dragged him to his house and snatched the wrist watch and some money from the informant. It is submitted that if the accused persons had any intention to kill the informant they had ample opportunity to do so, and there were no intervening circumstances to stop them from inflicting grievous injury which would lead to the death of the informant. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it 2 is argued that infact no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. These aspects of the matter have to be examined in the context of the evidence that would be led before the Trial Court and the injury report. The argument on behalf of the petitioners would have to be considered by the Trial Court in the light of the above submissions and the facts that come on record. I find no illegality in the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)