Dismissed

Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC7 May 2013CR. MISC./46974/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected a petition to quash proceedings against a driver accused of kidnapping. The court held that prima facie material implicating the petitioner justified continuing the trial, noting that defence explanations regarding hiring status cannot be considered at the quashing stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the charge sheet and charge is rejected. The session trial proceeds as usual.

Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu Vs The State Of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46974 of 2012 (2) dt.07-05-2013

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.46974 of 2012

¶4

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

¶5

Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu S/O Md. Habib Resident Of Village- Malahi, P.S.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

.... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner : M/S Rajendra Kumar Jain, Pradeep Kumar Sinha & Punam Srivastava, Advs.

¶11

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶14

2 07-05-2013

¶15

State.

¶16

This is a petition for quashing the charge sheet, dated 26.03.2011, as well as the charge framed on 10.09.2011 for offence under Section 364A/34 of the Penal Code in connection with S. Tr. No. 466 of 2012 arising out of Bochahan P.S. Case No. 211 of 2010 pending before the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, I, Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioner has been put on trial.

¶17

The prosecution case, as alleged, is that police, on information of one Dilip Kumar Sinha that while his son was going to school on cycle, he was kidnapped in the Bolero jeep bearing registration no. BR 06P 5449 and they are fleeing away along with his kidnapped son towards the road leading to Bhutani and, then, the police chased by jeep and apprehended seven persons along with this petitioner, who was the driver of the Bolero jeep and from the back of the said vehicle the kidnapped boy was also recovered, who was kept tight with a muffler and the victim boy disclosed about the occurrence that he was kidnapped from his cycle and kept in the vehicle on the point of pistol and also disclosed that the accused persons were talking about the ransom worth rupees twenty lakhs. The petitioner disclosed his name as Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu.

¶18

However, the defence of the accused-petitioner is

¶19

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46974 of 2012 (2) dt.07-05-2013

¶20

2/3

¶21

that he is the driver of the said Bolero jeep and he was hired by one Pankaj Kumar Singh, who is the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner has no concern with the crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 10 of the case diary where the statement of Pankaj Kumar Singh, the owner of the said Bolero jeep, who stated that he is owner of the vehicle and on information of the driver he reached there at the place of occurrence and, further, paragraph 85 mentions the statement of the accused persons that the vehicle on which the occurrence took place hired.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought the quashing of the proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that even the uncontroverted statement and material found in the case diary, no offence is made out against the petitioner and has placed reliance on the decision reported in 2011(1) P.L.J.R., 23 ( Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vrs. Ram Gopal Poddar & Anr.) as well as the category of Bhajan Lal’s case (State of Haryana & Ors. Vrs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992 Supp.(1) S.C.C.335)] that even the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that the allegation made apparently on the face, itself, that the petitioner caught with the accused on Bolero jeep while the Bolero jeep was being chased by the police on the information of the kidnapping of the boy and the accused along with the victim was arrested on the spot from the vehicle, itself, hence, there is prima facie material against the petitioner for commission of the offence.

¶24

Hence, having regard to the respective submissions that there is specific allegation that the accused persons kidnapped the boy and took him in the Bolero jeep and while fleeing away the police chased and caught hold of the said

¶25

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46974 of 2012 (2) dt.07-05-2013

¶26

3/3

¶27

Bolero jeep from which the petitioner also apprehended along with the victim, who disclosed that he was kidnapped and accused persons were talking about the ransom and the mere allegation against the petitioner and the evidence collected, during the investigation, itself, indicates the implication of the petitioner in the crime. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only a driver of the vehicle, as apparent from paragraphs 10 and 85 of the case diary, it is only a defence of the accused at this stage and at the stage either of taking cognizance or at the stage of charge or even at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court or the Court below can not look into the defence of the accused, hence, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶28

However, the defence of the accused can only to be looked at the stage of trial and not at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶29

Hence, I do not find any merit in the case.

¶30

This petition is rejected .

¶31

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶32

SA/-

Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ajibul @ Md. Ajibul Rahman @ Kallu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiut Ram @ Jeeut Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Raju Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sitaram Yadav @ Badri Yadav and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Arjun Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Puja Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Om Prkash Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar