Dismissed

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC18 Sept 2012CR. MISC./8021/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a discharge petition challenging the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge who rejected the plea on the basis of strong suspicion against the petitioners arising from the casualty to the victim girl during the post-marriage period.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to petitioners to raise all points before the court below during the trial.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8021 of 2011

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Arun Kumar son of Bhola Nath Pandit

¶5

Indu Devi wife of Sri Arun Kumar

¶6

Tutuu Kumar son of Sri Arun Kumar

¶7

Bittu Kumar son of Sri Arun Kumar

¶8

All resident of Hazari Mohalla, Khamba Ka Akhara, PS-Mehandigunj, District-Patna at present residing in the building of Sri Bikram Sharma, Mohalla-Purandarpur, P.G.Line, PS-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶9

The State Of Bihar

¶10

Krishna Pandit, son of late Shiv Deni Pandit, resident of village-Karap, PS-Vikram, District-Patna, at present residing in Road No. 5, Qr. No. 3, Gardanibagh, PS-Gardanibagh, District-Patna

¶11

Kushm Kumari D/o Krishna Pandit, resident of village-Aarap, PSVikram, District-Patna

¶12

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.N. Jha, Adv. and

¶14

Mr. Keshav Pd. Nirala, Adv.

¶15

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 18-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶18

In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna in S.T. No. 1207/2010 arising from Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the court below has rejected the discharge petition.

¶19

From the F.I.R. it appears that the allegation has been made by the father of the victim girl that his daughter was married on 8.3.2008 and after the marriage, she was living in her Sasural

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8021 of 2011 (3) dt.18-09-2012

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

On 18.4.2008 the informant received a telephonic call that his daughter had been burnt and was taken to Apolo Hospital. She was treated at Apolo Hospital for 40 days where she did not utter a word due to the threat. When the victim came to her parents house, she narrated the whole story of demand of motor cycle and torture perpetrated on her by all in laws’ members, putting kerosene oil on her body by her husband and in flamed the fire by Machis Box. On the basis of written statement of the informant, a case was registered as Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2009 for offences under sections 498A, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

After commitment, the petitioners filed an application under section 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. for their discharge. The court below heard the matter and passed the order impugned found the discharge petition having no merit and dismissed the same.

¶24

The counsel for the petitioners submits that on the next day of the incident, the victim girl herself stated about the fire was caught while she was cooking food and in her statement she has specifically mentioned that her in laws’ members were not involved in that incident. He further submits that the statement was given before the Police where no allegation has been made against the husband and others. He further submits that after ten

¶25

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8021 of 2011 (3) dt.18-09-2012

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

months the present case has been lodged that itself shows that petitioners have falsely implicated in this present case. He has further submitted that it was an accident that had occurred while she was preparing food and as such, petitioners are liable to be discharged.

¶28

The counsel for the State has submitted that while deciding the matter of discharge, the court below was not required to examine the material meticulously, only the strong suspicion is the test for consideration of the discharge petition . The counsel for the State has further pointed out that the court below has examined the whole case diary and found strong suspicion against the petitioners and as such, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality.

¶29

Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court will not examine the matter meticulously at this stage and it is only to be seen as to whether the strong suspicion on the basis of materials on the record is made out. From the impugned order it appears that the court has considered the different paragraphs of the case diary and arrived to finding of strong suspicion against petitioners on the basis of materials available on record.

¶30

This Court does not find any error in the order

¶31

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8021 of 2011 (3) dt.18-09-2012

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to raise all points before the court below during the trial.

¶34

Mahesh/-

¶35

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gulshan Khatoon and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Govind Jha Vs the State of Bihar

Md. Faruque Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Samsuddin Ansari Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.