IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48035 of 2007 VED PRAKASH S/O- SRI ARJUN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAHIYAMA TOLA, P.S.- TOWN, DISTRICT- CHHAPRA (SARAN) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BINOD KUMAR SINGH, S/O- DEVENDRA PD. SINGH R/O- NANDLAL TOLA, P.S.- CHAPRA, DIST. CHAPRA. 3. ANAND BARDHAN S/O- DEVENDRA PD. SINGH 4. ARUN KR. SINGH, S/O- DEVENDRA PD. SINGH 5. DEVENDRA PD. SINGH, S/O- GULAB SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RATHAOR TOLA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- CHAPRA. 6. LAL BABU SINGH, S/O- SAR JUG SINGH 7. DASRATH SINGH, S/O- CHANDRIKA SINGH BOTH ARE R/O- BASARHI, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DIST. CHAPRA. For the petitioner : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate For the O.Ps : Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5 30.08.2010 Petitioner (informant ) is aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 915 of 2005 (State Versus Binod Kumar Singh) whereby application of the accused filed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. has been considered and disposed of. It appears that they were facing charge under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 307 IPC. Learned trial court disposed of the application in the following manner: “The learned lawyer for the defence has argued that from perusal of the injury reports available on the case diary it is prima facie clear that Marpit was happened between both the parties and there is no evidence that the death of a human being was attempted and such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused persons and that such act was done with intention of causing death. From perusal of the injury report of Jai Prakash 2 Rai it appears to me that a case u/s 326 I.P.C. is made out. In the light of the discussion made above I am of the view that a case u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 504 and 326 I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons.“ Learned counsel submits that there is no finding recorded by learned trial court with regard to non-application of Section 307 IPC and as such the order is bad in law. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that a perusal of the order would show that learned trial court applied its judicial mind and on perusal of the entire materials emanating from record has found that on the strength of the materials on record, a case under Section 326 IPC besides other allied sections are made out. Accordingly, the charges have been framed and the matter was directed to be transmitted to the court below for trial. I have perused the order. It appears that learned trial court has found on the basis of the materials placed on record that on the strength of the materials placed on record, it cannot be inferred that there was any intention to kill any one on the prosecution side. It was case of marpit between the parties over filing of bid papers. On that premise, a view has been taken which cannot be said to be perverse. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )