IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16670 of 2010 GOPAL PRASAD KESHRI, SON OF LATE GAYA PRASAD KESHRI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHIRAYANTAND POSTAL PARK DEVI ASTHAN, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTY with Cr.Misc. No.12683 of 2010 GOPAL PRASAD KESHRI, SON OF LATE GAYA PRASAD KESHRI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHIRAYANTAND POSTAL PARK DEVI ASTHAN, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTY ******** 3 3.2.2011 The petitioner has been made accused for murder of his nephew. A case was instituted in which the petitioner’s name did not figure at the initial stage. Charge sheet was submitted on the basis of a story that the deceased was involved with a girl which was not to the liking of another group of boys and they had engineered the murder of the deceased. After submission of the charge sheet an application was filed by the father of the deceased in which he made a statement that it was actually this petitioner who had engineered the entire murder. It appears that one of the co- accused who was caught in this case has 2 stated that he had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from this petitioner to do away with the life of Sashi Ranjan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the initial stage the petitioner has nowhere in the picture and due to business rivalry, the father of the deceased has implicated this petitioner in the present case after a gap of two months. It is submitted that not a single witness has supported the fact that the petitioner was present at the time w hen the occurrence took place and, therefore, it is obviously a cooked up story made with intention to harass the petitioner. It appears that there are two versions to the prosecution case. However, this Court cannot test which of the two versions are correct at this stage. The proper stage to find out the correctness of the allegations would be at the stage of trial. In the result, I do not see any illegality in the order rejecting the petition for discharge and the consequential order of framing of charges on 6.2.2010 in 3 Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2009 pending before the Fast Track Court No. I, Patna. These two quashing applications are thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)