Allowed

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC16 May 2019CR. MISC./4598/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court set aside an order refusing temporary remand back to Magistrate under Section 228(1)(a) CrPC. The court remitted the matter to find if petitions induced a mob to pelt stones with intention endangering life.

What did the court decide?

the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted back to the lower court for fresh consideration to record findings on intent to endanger life.

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4598 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2010 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and Anr Son of Kali Kant Jha, Resident of Village- Kharaia Basti Ward No. 13.

¶5

Md. Mohiuddin @ Madan Son of Farmuddin Ali, Resident of VillageKhalilabad, Both Police Station and District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 16-05-2019

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

¶15

learned APP.

¶16

Prayer of the petitioners to the effect that no offence exclusively triable by the court of sessions is made out, whereupon, the matter be remitted back to the court of Magistrate as provided under Section 228(1)(a) of the CrPC having been refused by the order dated 18.09.2016 passed by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 207/2015, is the subject matter of instant petition.

¶17

Gone through the order impugned in consonance with the materials having been annexed with the instant petition. From perusal of the same, it is evident that while petitioners

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4598 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2019 2/4

¶19

were leading a mob who were engaged in putting blockade over the road in the background of the apprehension of three accused at an earlier occasion by the DTO and for that, Araria PS Case No. 143/2010 has been registered, the police party had gone to remove the obstruction and during course thereof, as has been alleged at the instance of these two petitioners, the members of the mob pelted stones. On account thereof, after registration of Araria PS Case No. 145/2010, case was investigated followed with submission of charge-sheet under different Sections out of which 307 IPC only happens to be exclusively triable by the court of sessions whereupon, after commitment the matter came up before ADJ where a prayer has been made and on being refused, put under challenge the instant petition.

¶20

For better appreciation of the facts of the case in consonance with the submissions having been made on behalf of the petitioner, it looks desirable to have Section 307 IPC quoted below:-

¶21

Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—2[When any

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4598 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2019 3/4

¶23

person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] illustrations

¶24

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

¶25

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.

¶26

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.

¶27

(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

¶28

After going through the allegation, it is apparent

¶29

that there is an allegation against the petitioners to have instigated the members of the mob who pelted stones. Though, at the present stage only even weaker to prima facie case has to be seen, even then there should have been some sort of allegation that petitioners have indulged or abated by way of instigation with an intention or knowledge that by such an activity the life of the victim/police personnel could be at stake. The illustrations as shown hereinabove, also suggest like so.

¶30

From the order impugned, it is evident that there happens to be no finding on that very score. Consequent thereupon, setting aside the order impugned, the matter is

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4598 of 2017(2) dt.16-05-2019 4/4

¶32

remitted back to the learned lower court to consider afresh and will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in the

¶33

background of the finding as recorded hereinabove.

¶34

The instant petition is allowed.

¶35

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶36

perwez

¶37

U T

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha and Anr. 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

Dhananjay Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nikesh Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Vishwanath Mahto @ Bishwanath Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Munni Kumari and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Mahto Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shankar Mandal and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.