MATUKI GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code in short) filed by Matuki Giri and two others for quashing the order dated 5.10.1996, so far these petitioners are concerned, recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in G.R. Case No. 702 of 1994 by which cognizance of offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act was taken against the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner Ram Narayan Dubey had filed First Information Report on 16.4.1994 alleging that on the preceding day Munna Tiwary and Murari Dubey had come with bombs in a Jhola and arms and Munna Tiwari threatened with bomb. Subsequently on nulla of Matuki Giri, the villagers came running and caught Munna Tiwari with two live bombs but co -accused Murari Dubey succeeded in escaping, claiming that the informant had suffered injuries having been assaulted by Murari Dubey. Thereafter, it appears that investigation proceeded and the police submitted first charge -sheet showing (in column 2 of the charge -sheet) Matuki Giri and Parmanand Dubey as not sent up also showing Ram Narayan Dubey, Munna Tiwari and Murary Dubey (in column 3 and 4 of the charge -sheet) either in custody or on bail, also noting that the investigation was continuing against Matuki Giri and Parmanand Dubey. It appears that subsequently after completion of the investigation charge -sheet was also submitted against Ram Narayan Dubey, Parmanand Dubey and Matuki Giri under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that from the seizure list it would appear that the two bombs were recovered from Munna Tiwari still the police after biased investigation and recording statement of some of witnesses that those two bombs were planted by Matuki Giri and two others, filed charge -sheet against the petitioners, also submitting that there was no prima facie material in the case diary to support the allegation. It was also argued that if charge -sheet was to be submitted against the petitioners, the police or some one should have filed separate first information report but on the basis of same first information report which was essentially against Munna Tiwari and one other, the police could not have submitted charge -sheet against the petitioners.