IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5412 of 2010 1. RAJ KAMAL PRASAD @ RAJ KAMAL PASWAN 2. Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Paswan -Both sons of Late Rajbans Prasad, resident of Village Talaiya Bazar Samitee Gate, PS Sasaram, District Rohtas …. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …. Opp.Party ----------- 02- 16.2.2010 Heard Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra for the petitioners, and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for opposite party. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22.10.2009, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, in Sessions Trial no.218 of 2009 (State of Bihar vs. Rajesh Paswan and others), whereby the application filed by the present petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. One Rajendra Paswan lodged F.I.R. bearing Sasaram PS Case No.339 of 2007, dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure 5), alleging offences against the two petitioners under Section 341, 323, 386, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the two petitioners are full brothers, and wife of petitioner no.1 was contesting local elections. The two petitioners and the informant are cousins, and it is alleged that petitioner no.1 had requested Rajendra Paswan to extend their help to the candidature of the wife of petitioner no.1 in the elections. It is further alleged that Rajendra Paswan failed to 2 extend any help as a result of which she lost the elections, and had also incurred expenses of about Rs.1 lac in electioneering. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioners started chasing the informant to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac to them, being the amount of expenses incurred in the election otherwise they would be done to death. In fact, they were able to extract Rs. two thousand at gun-point and the informant was directed to arrange and make payment of the balance amount failing which they will be done to death leading to the FIR. The police investigated the allegations and charge sheeted both the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed the aforesaid application under section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the case as there is no material in the case diary to frame charges against them, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a malafide prosecution to satisfy the vengeance by a close relative. He next submits that petitioner no.2 was on the relevant date and at the relevant point of time in Patna to appear at an interview for government service. 4. Learned APP has supported the impugned order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears on a perusal of the materials placed before us that the 3 petitioners had, after the wife of petitioner no.1 lost the election, unleashed a rein of terror against the informant. They were piqued by the defeat in the election as well as the expenses incurred over it. It is further alleged that they were able to catch hold of the informant in the village, were able to extract two thousand rupees on gun-point, and gave him time to arrange for payment of Rs.98,000/- failing which they would be done to death. The allegations are surely of serious nature, have been fully investigated by the police, and they have been charge sheeted. Therefore, it appears to me that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. We, therefore, do not find it possible to interfere with the same. 6. Petitioner no.2 has also raised the plea of alibi before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has rightly rejected the contention by stating that the plea of alibi is essentially an issue of facts and needs substantive evidence to deal with the same. We entirely agree with the same. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl