Allowed

Tunnu Singh @ Tunnu Babu @ Harishwar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2019CR. MISC./1589/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging orders rejecting a discharge prayer under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and framing charges under IPC 413 and 414. Finding deficiencies in the lower court's record and support, the Court set aside both orders and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting discharge prayer and the order framing charges; remitted matter to the lower court for fresh hearing in accordance with law.

Tunnu Singh @ Tunnu Babu @ Harishwar Prasad Singh Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1589 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2011 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada

¶3

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

¶4

Tunnu Singh @ Tunnu Babu @ Harishwar Prasad Singh, Son of Shail Suteshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Khatangi Kothi, Manpur, Police StationMufassil, District gaya

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh-Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh-Advocate Mr. Mayuri-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali-A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER

¶8

8 18-04-2019

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶10

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.05.2016, whereby and whereunder prayer for discharge purported to be under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and subsequently, also allowed vide order dated 12.04.2019 to challenge the order dated 19.05.2016, whereby and whereunder charges have been framed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 413 I.P.C. as well as Section 414 I.P.C. relating to Sessions Trial No.246 of 2015, arising out of Hisua P. S. Case no.187 of 2011 by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nawada.

¶11

In order to properly appreciate the matter in hand, it is evident that on confidential information while the informant Anwarul Haque, O/c of Hisua P. S. indulged in vehicle checking, halted Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No.BR-21E-4678, which was searched out and during course thereof, five bags of electric wire along with cutter were seized and for

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1589 of 2017(8) dt.18-04-2019 2/3

¶13

that, the owner thereof, had disclosed his identity as Radhe Thathera while the driver Rajiv Kumar. It is further evident from the self-statement of the informant, which happens to be basis of instant trial that on query, the aforesaid Radhe Thathera had disclosed identity of his associates and manner whereunder they indulged themselves in disposing of stolen electric wire.

¶14

Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the self-statement of the informant. That means to say, presence of petitioner was not at all divulged by Radhe Thathera. From the order impugned, it is evident that supplementary chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner on the basis of inculpatory extra-judicial confessional statement of Radhe Thathera. Save and except, the aforesaid disclosure, no other materials has been shown depicting an effort at the end of the learned lower Court to have the original case diary as well as supplementary case diary and further, the nature of the incriminating materials so collected against the petitioner during course of investigation.

¶15

Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. speaks as follows:-

¶16

“227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

¶17

From the order impugned, it is evident that there happens to

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1589 of 2017(8) dt.18-04-2019 3/3

¶19

be some sort of deficiency at the end of the learned lower Court while rejecting the prayer having made at the end of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Consequent thereupon, neither rejection of the prayer nor framing of charge in accordance with Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. is found in consonance with law.

¶20

As such, the successive orders are set aside being consequential to each other. Petition is allowed. Matter is remitted back to the learned lower Court to hear the petitioner afresh and will pass an order in accordance with the requirement of the law.

¶21

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶22

vikash/-

¶23

U T

Tunnu Singh @ Tunnu Babu @ Harishwar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tunnu Singh @ Tunnu Babu @ Harishwar Prasad Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azim Khan @ Ajim Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Yadav @ Lal Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Mala Jha and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Gaurav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.