NAVLEEN SINGH @ NAVNEEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been dismissed by the Court below.

(2.) THE petitioner has been made accused in Balidih P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 745 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 413, 414 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the police was informed that some stolen railway scraps were kept near a hut and the petitioner and other co-accused persons were involved in transaction of the stolen railway materials and they were about to take away the same on the vehicle after weighting the same. The place was raided by the police party, whereupon, some of the accused persons managed to flee away, but one accused was apprehended. The apprehended co-accused disclosed the name of the petitioner also to be present there, who was about to take away the stolen railways materials. The stolen materials were seized and the case was instituted against the petitioner and other co-accused. It appears that after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner also and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where, he filed his application for discharge. The Court below on the basis of the materials on record found that there are sufficient materials for framing of charge against the petitioner under Sections 413, 414 ad 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. In the facts of the case, it is apparent that there is direct allegation of involvement of the petitioner also in transaction of the stolen railway materials. The police was informed about the same and upon raid, the petitioner allegedly managed to flee away from the said place. The apprehended co-accused took the name of the petitioner to be involved in transaction of the stolen railway materials. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that there is no material against the petitioner for framing of charge for the said offences, as alleged.