Dismissed

Binod Sahani and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC3 Jan 2018CR. MISC./63469/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court held that no error was committed by the Trial Judge in summoning witnesses not cited in the chargesheet, as some appeared in the fardbeyan or informant's evidence. The petition challenging the summoning order was dismissed, but the prosecution must examine witnesses within two months to avoid delay.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing summoning of witnesses was affirmed; no interference granted. Petition dismissed with observation to examine witnesses within two months.

Binod Sahani and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63469 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2014 Thana- Sidhwara District- Darbhanga

¶3

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

¶4

Binod Sahani, Son of Rajendra Sahani,

¶5

Rajendra Sahani, son of Late Ram Sharan Sahani, Both resident of Village- Agayaspur, Police Station- Singhwara, DistrictDarbhanga.

¶6

... ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar.

¶9

Chulhai Bhagat, Son of Jamuna Bhagat, Both resident of VillageAgayaspur, Police Station- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga.

¶10

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

2. 03-01-2018

¶13

Heard Sri Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for

¶14

the petitioner and Sri Nityanand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶15

Two petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 08-11-2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge – IV, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Judge’) in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2015. By the said order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for summoning three persons to be examined as witnesses, whereas, those persons were not named as witness in

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63469 of 2017(2) dt.03-01-2018 2/4

¶17

the chargesheet.

¶18

Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the order, submits that those witnesses, who were neither cited in the chargesheet nor their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, were only summoned by the prosecution to fill-up the gap of the prosecution, which is not permissible in the eye of law and as such, a prayer has been made to set aside the order impugned.

¶19

Sri Nityanand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer, by way of referring to the impugned order, submits that Lalit Bhagat had signed as a witness on the fardbeyan , but to the reasons best known to the investigating officer, he was not cited as a witness in the chargesheet and with regard to summoning other two persons namely Manjoo Devi and Jay Kishan Sah, it has been argued that their name has come in the evidence of informant and as such, the learned Trial Judge, considering the fact that Lalit Bhagat had signed on the fardbeyan as a witness as well as the fact that name of other two persons namely Jay Kishun Sah and Manjoo Devi had transpired in the evidence of informant, has rightly summoned them to be examined as witnesses.

¶20

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63469 of 2017(2) dt.03-01-2018 3/4

¶22

also perused the materials on record. On going through the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that learned Trial Judge has committed no error in allowing the petition of the prosecution to summon those three persons as witnesses.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners has alternatively argued that Binod Sahani (petitioner no. 1) is already in custody and as such, allowing the petition may amount to further incarceration of the petitioner no. 1 without any evidence, since though 15 (fifteen) prosecution witnesses have been examined, none had supported the prosecution case and only with a view to further detain the petitioner no. 1, such petition has been filed.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that Lalit Bhagat has already stood as a witness in the fardbeyan as well as the fact that name of other two witnesses namely Jay Kishun Sah and Manjoo Devi had come in the evidence of informant, there is no apparent error in the impugned order by way of summoning them as witnesses.

¶25

Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order, however; considering the fact that petitioner no. 1 is in custody, while dismissing the present petition, it is necessary to observe that the prosecution may complete examination of aforesaid summoned witnesses preferably within

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.63469 of 2017(2) dt.03-01-2018 4/4

¶27

a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge may take all effort so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.

¶28

The petition stands dismissed with observation, as indicated hereinabove.

¶29

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.

¶30

(Rakesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

anay

¶32

U T

Binod Sahani and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Sahani and Anr. v. 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

Vijay Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Fula Rani and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Sugandh @ Sugandh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Preeti Jaiswal and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar Through Special Vigilance Unit, Patna

Usha Verma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through Special Vigilance Unit, Patna

Vijay Yadav @ Bijay Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar