Dismissed¶7

Soyeb Akhtar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Apr 2024CR. MISC./24276/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.24276 of 2023, decided 01-04-2024, Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. — Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition against rejection of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2022; Siswan P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022, District Siwan; framing of charge; grave suspicion test; only prosecution material considered at discharge stage; defence not cognisable at Section 227 stage; Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements; absence of eye-witnesses; petitioner named during investigation; relied on M. E. Shivalingamurthy vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 (2) SCC 768; petitioner Soyeb Akhtar; opposite parties State of Bihar and Mukesh Kumar Pandey.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order, there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner. ¶5

Soyeb Akhtar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.11.2022 rejecting the petitioner's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., given that the petitioner was named only during investigation on the basis of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses who were not eye-witnesses. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The points raised by the petitioner are matters of defence, which cannot be looked into while considering a discharge petition; while deciding a discharge petition only materials brought on record by the prosecution are to be considered.

¶5

Key takeaways

Where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court would be justified to frame charge against the accused.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.), by order dated 01-04-2024, dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA/MLC, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2022 (arising out of Siswan P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022), whereby the petitioner's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. had been rejected. Held (paras 5-6): there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the petitioner; the petitioner's contentions — that he was named only during investigation on the basis of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses who were not eye-witnesses and was apprehended one and a half months after the occurrence — are matters of defence which cannot be looked into while considering a discharge petition; where the prosecution material discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court would be justified to frame charge. In support, the Court relied on M. E. Shivalingamurthy vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 (2) S.C.C. 768 (defence of an accused cannot be considered at the Section 227 Cr.P.C. stage), and dismissed the petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24276 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2022 Thana- SISWAN District- Siwan

¶3

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

¶4

Soyeb Akhtar S/o Shamim Akhtar @ Samim Akhtar R/o village-Chandpur, P.S.-Siswan, District-Siwan

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Mukesh Kumar Pandey S/o Chhotelal Pandey R/o-Chandpur, P.S.-Siswan, District-Siwan

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 01-04-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of

¶16

the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2022, arising out of Siswan P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA/MLC, Siwan, whereby the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioner has been rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24276 of 2023(3) dt.01-04-2024 2/4

¶19

suspicion. F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown miscreants. There is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. Name of the petitioner has transpired during course of investigation on the basis of statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During course of the investigation, none of the witnesses has claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence and all have appeared at the place of occurrence after the occurrence and on the basis of statement of witnesses, who were not an eyewitness, the petitioner has been apprehended after one & half month of the occurrence. The statement recorded before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law and accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order impugned.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State, while supporting the impugned order, submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Court below is only required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out the existence of all the ingredients. At this stage, there is no need to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused and as such, this petition is devoid of merit and fit to be rejected.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. From perusal of the order

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24276 of 2023(3) dt.01-04-2024 3/4

¶23

impugned, it is apparent that there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner. The points, raised by the petitioner, are matter of defence, which cannot be looked into while considering discharge petition. While deciding a discharge petition, only materials brought on record by the prosecution have to be considered and accused is entitled to discharge if evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or reverted by the defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the offence. Where the material, placed before the Court, discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court would be justified to frame charge against the accused.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy vs Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in 2020 (2) S.C.C. 768 , has held that the defence of an accused person cannot be considered at the stage where the accused person wants to be released under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case ( supra ), this petition is without any merit and is,

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24276 of 2023(3) dt.01-04-2024 4/4

¶27

accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶29

anay/-

¶30

U T

Soyeb Akhtar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soyeb Akhtar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeev Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Pramod Prasad Singh @ Shambhu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Omkar Nath Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Mahto @ Lalbabu Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Dhirendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar