IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5701 of 2010 JAI PRAKASH BHAGAT SON OF LATE SHITAL PRASAD BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MOHANGANJ, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. … PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 03.05.2011. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2009 arising out of Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 for the offence under Section 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code by which the Court below has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner. Ranju Devi, the informant’s sister was the second wife of Bishundeo Yadav. Accused Chakarpani Yadav is the brother of Bishundeo Yadav. Bajo Yadav is also his brother. The two ladies Meera Kumari and Soni Kumari are the wives of the two brothers. The petitioner Jai Prakash Bhagat is a businessman and has no connection and in fact he is not related to Bishundeo Yadav and others. The case is that Bishundeo yadav assaulted Ranju Devi and his brother Sikander Yadav. The informant found that her brother and sister were missing 2 from the house and thereafter lodged a case under Section 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation, cognizance was taken only for the offences under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not connected to any of the accused persons. He is a businessman and he has no reason to be part of any planning of the actual kidnapping as alleged. It is further submitted that he has filed discharge petition along with the main accused Bishundeo Yadav, his case has been considered in the same footing. While framing of charge, it is well settled that even if there is suspicion against the person concerned, then the Court may take cognizance and frame charges against such a person. The Court below has passed order taking into account Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein it has been stated as follows: “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of 3 the particular case”. I find that in fact the Court below has not considered whether the evidence, specifically relates to Jai Prakash Bhagat, is of such a nature that it can be presumed that he would have been involved in the said kidnapping, as there should be a good reason for him to be part of the said transaction. In the result, I remand this matter to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Munger with respect to the petitioner of Jai Prakash Bhagat who will consider that whether the allegations in the First Information Report vis-à-vis the petitioner is corroborated by the evidence in the case diary. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-IV, Munger shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-IV, Munger within a period of four weeks from today. The order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2009 arising out of 4 Sangrampur P.S. Case no. 43 of 2005 is set aside as far as relates to the above named petitioner. 6. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Ibrar/- ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)