JAMSHED HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Saran, Chhapra, in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2008, rejecting the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant-opposite party no. 2, Dina Nath Singh, Chhapra Rail P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown on 11.11.2007. In his fardbeyan, the informant-opposite party no. 2, Dina Nath Singh, has alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning of 11.11.2007, had proceeded for Chhapra Junction. He came to know from one Mritunjay Singh at about 7.30 A.M. that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, has been murdered at Railway line, near Jagdamb College, Dhala. On receiving such information, he reached at the alleged place of occurrence and saw that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, is lying dead pooled with blood in between meter gauge line, where his red coloured hand bag, goggles and white coloured cap were lying. The informant-opposite party no. 2 raised suspicion that with an intention to snatching, the criminals have committed this occurrence. It is further alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, had mobile phone bearing no. 9835676665 but that was not there. His brother was also in possession of M.S.T. (from Chhapra to Hajipur) bearing no. 19025259, which was valid upto 19.11.2007, cash Rs. 2,200/- and S.B.I. ATM card bearing no. 6220180015300271721. The informant-opposite party no. 2, also alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, was working in Rural Development Department, Patna-2.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and nothing incriminating has been collected against him in course of investigation except that from the mobile phone of the deceased, Upendra Kumar Singh, the co-accused, Mantu Kumar Rai, had talked with the petitioner in the evening of the alleged date of occurrence and on interrogation, the petitioner has disclosed that the aforesaid co-accused, Mantu Kumar Rai, asked him to pay the price of the milk as was due against him and nothing else, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, illegally rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.

(3.) On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State, made submission that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation in paragraphs-87, 110, 115, 118 and 119 of the case diary, as such, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saran, Chhapra, has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.