IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9215 of 2008 1. OM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY, SON OF SITA RAM ARYA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NEW COLONY BALUGHAT, P.S., TOWN & DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 2. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF LALAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA IMALI CHOTTI JURAN CHAPRA, P.S. BRAHAMPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 3. MD. SAKIL, SON OF MADHU MIAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA POWER HOUSE CHOWK, MARIPUR, P.S. KAZIMOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 4. DEVENDRA PASWAN, SON OF LATE JAI NANDAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHANDDWARA GHAT BHAGOPUR, P.S. AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 5. MD. NIZAM, SON OF ABDUL SAKUR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHOTI KALYANI B.B. GANJ LANE, P.S. TOWN & DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RITESH KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR, SON OF YOGENDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SRIDILPUR, P.S. PATORI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 16.3.2010 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 1.2.2008, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 1997 by which petition filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the First Information Report itself shows that the case instituted under Section 395 is the most improbable. It is also submitted that the informant was watching certain persons who were gambling. Suddenly six or seven persons of them surrounded the informant and took all his belongings. The informant is said to have gone to the house of the D.I.G. and brought some police force at the place where the gambling was going on and those persons were caught on the spot and money recovered from them. It is further submitted that in fact the informant lost all his money while gambling and has thereafter called the police force and got these - 2 - petitioners arrested. It is also submitted that it is unbelievable that after committing dacoity the persons concerned continued to remain on the spot. These aspects relate to the defence of the petitioner and it has to be decided in the light of the evidence led in this case. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)