IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41128 of 2008 1. Nasib Lal Yadav, Son of late Tetar Yadav. 2. Uday Yadav. 3. Bipin Yadav. 4. Munna Yadav, Sons of Nasib Lal Yadav All resident of Village Nansud Bigha, PS Chhabilapur, District Nalanda ---- Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar ----- Opposite Party ----------- 3 2.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant. The petitioners have moved this Court against the order of cognizance dated 8.8.2008 taken under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 27 of the Arms Act in Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008. This Court while hearing the matter on 22.4.2009 had stayed further proceedings in this case and had called for the case diary of Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that on the same day, two First Information Reports were instituted one in which Nagina Yadav is the informant. It is alleged that the sons of Shyam Yadav and others came to the mill of Nagina Yadav. There was a dispute over burning of the Holika which resulted in injury to Nagina Yadav, his brother and one Sakli Devi. The version in Silao P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 is that Shyam Yadav came to intervene in the matter to stop his sons from fighting. It has been said that one of the sons of Shyam Yadav namely Niranjan Yadav who was holding a gun pressed the trigger and as a result of which Shyam Yadav died. In order to build a case, Niranjan Yadav filed Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008. Referring to the case diary of Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2 2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the statement made at paragraph 6 and paragraph 82, there is no evidence against these petitioners. At paragraph 6, it has been stated by Ram Bilash Yadav, who is not an eye witness, that he had heard that these petitioners were in the ‘party’ of Nagina Yadav. At paragraph 82 one of the sons of Shyam Yadav i.e. Dhananjay Yadav names the petitioners as well the members of the mob. Learned counsel submits that once the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report against the petitioners, the Court below could not have taken cognizance against the petitioners without giving reasons. Since all the materials are before this Court, it would appear to this Court, that the question as to whether these petitioners were present at the place of occurrence and whether the version stated in Silao P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 is true viz a viz the version stated in Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008 shall have to be tested in a full fledged trial. This Court finds that in a case of this nature where the allegations contradict each other, and arise out of the same occurrence, such case should be tried together. I thus, direct that the trial of Silao P.S. Case No. 31 of 2008 and Silao P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 should be taken up together side by side. The Courts below which are at present connected with the case are directed to ensure that these matters are ready for hearing and commitment expeditiously. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)