KAUSAR IMAM HASHMI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 03.07.2004 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 326/99. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioners.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Ram Pukar Chaudhary, an F.I.R. vide Bishanpur P.S. Case No.58 of 1994 was registered for the offence under Sections 148,149,307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the fardbeyan, recorded in D.M.C.H. Darbhanga, the informant in injured condition disclosed that while he along with other co -villagers was returning with their cattle, accused persons, who were F.I.R. named accused along with 10 -12 unknown accused persons surrounded the informant and others. On trivial issue, the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi and Qamar Hashmi after abusing the informant and others exhorted for killing the informant. On the order being given by petitioner nos.1 and 2, petitioner no.3 and one another accused, who was named in the F.I.R., namely, Shakil Hashmi fired from their guns. The informant received gun -shot injury by the petitioner no.3, whereas one Ram Kripal Choudhary received gun -shot injury by firing opened by co -accused Shakil Hashmi. In the said occurrence, other accused also fired. Number of accused persons were armed with Garasa and Bhala. In such indiscriminate firing, one passersby, namely, Kailashpati Chaudhary also received fire -arm injury. In the said occurrence, besides the informant others also received injuries. In the occurrence, one person died and number of other persons, who received injury, were carried to hospital. At the time of charge, petition was filed for discharge on behalf of the petitioners mainly on the plea of alibi beside other grounds.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after considering the case diary and also the fact that witnesses have supported the prosecution case has rejected the discharge petition, I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of this petition, interim order of stay dated 11.01.2010 stands vacated.