IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30755 of 2009 1. Ranakant Yadav son of Phuleshwar Yadav. 2. Deen Bandhu Yadav son of Phuleshwar Yadav. 3. Kanhya Yadav son of Bishwanath Yadav. 4. Harendra Yadav son of Phuleshwar Yadav. 5. Suraji Yadav sono f Phuleshwar Yadav. 6. Mohan Yadav son of Phuleshwar Yadav. 7. Narayan Mukhiya son of Ramagya Yadav. 8. Ramhari Mukhiya son of Ramagya Yadav 9. Rudal Yadav son of Phuleshwar Yadav. 10. Bali Mukhiya son of Laxman Mukhiya. 11. Hridya Yadav sonof Bishwanath Yadav. All (except petitoner No.7, 8 and 10) are resident of village Sapahiya Dhala, Police Station Kuchay Kot, District Gopalganj. and petitioner No. 7, 8 and 10 are resident of village Baira parsauni, police Satation Nautam, District West Champaran. Versus State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2 07.12.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.7, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by Sri Umesh Chand Srivastava, learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No.107 of 2003 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to dismiss the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has directed for framing of charge under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioners. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant and his elder brother were going to their house situated at Bhagwanpur Diyar across the river. After crossing the river by boat while the informant was releaving himself, his brother went ahead and was apprehended by 2 the accused persons. When the informant heard hulla, he saw these petitioners surrounding his elder brother. It has been specifically alleged that the petitioner No.1 was armed with a rifle and the other petitioners were also armed with gun katta etc. The allegation as set out in the F.I.R. further charges the petitioner No.1 of having fired at the brother of the petitioner causing his death. The allegation as set out in the F.I.R. gave rise to Nautan P.S. Case No. 81 of 2002 instituted against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The police submitted chargesheet in the case and against which the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge as according to them, there were no material available connecting them to the alleged offences. The application for discharge having been rejected by the impugned order dated 8.05.2009 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, hence the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare reading of the F.I.R manifests that the informant does not appear to be an eye witness to the occurrence. He further submits that as per his own statement the informant after finding the accused persons present started running towards the village and when he heard the gun shot. He thus submits that the informant having not seen the occurrence the implication of the petitioners is unjust. It is contended that the criminal case in question is an out 3 come of litigations running between the two families He further with reference to the statement made in paragraph 11 of the application submits that although initially chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner No.7, Narayan Mukhiya on 11.07.2002, the second charge sheet was submitted on 26.10.2003 against others while the investigation remained pending against the petitioner No.1 and against whom chargesheet was submitted as late as on 22.03.2007 . He thus submits that considering the delay in submission of chargesheet against the petitioner No.1, is itself sufficient ground for discharge of the petitioners of the alleged offences . Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as having perused the substance of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R. as also the order impugned passed by the learned Court below in rejecting the application of the petitioners for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Court below. Learned Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner upon appreciation the allegation as set out in the F.I.R., the materials that has come to notice during the course of investigation as also the chargesheeet submitted in the case. The issues raised by the petitioner can well be raised by them during the course of trial. No case for interference is made out. The case is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)