Patna High Court - Orders
Sheoji Prasad And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 4 July, 2012
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19171 of 2011 (2) dt.04-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19171 of 2011
======================================================
1 Sheoji Prasad son of Late Bigu Sah @ Bigu Ram
2. Brajesh Kr. Gupta son of Sheoji Prasad
Both are resident of Mohalla-Kamalnath Nagar, PS-Bettiah (T), District-
West Champaran
3. Prabhu Das son of Bhola Das, resident of village-Pakdihar, PS-
Chanpatiya, District-West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Tarkeshwar Sah son of late Prahlad Sah, resident of Mohalla-Turha
Toli, Bettiah, P.S.-Bettiah (T), District-West Champaran.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Kr. Srivastava
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-07-2012Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.9.2001 by which the court below has taken cognizance for offences under sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted that the deceased person was the member of the kidnappers and had kidnapped the son of the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter his son was killed by the kidnapper and allegation has been made in another F.I.R. that deceased along with others had gone for demand of ransom and on chase by the villagers, they were caught and the victim was lynched by mob.
In the present case, the story is quite different. It has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19171 of 2011 (2) dt.04-07-2012 been alleged that the father of informant (victim) was kidnapped and later on he was killed and the court below has taken cognizance for offences under sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not really a case of kidnapping or murder but the fact is that petitioner along with others had gone to demand ransom, the deceased was trying to flee away from the place of occurrence, the villagers surrounded and lynched the deceased.
At this stage, the defence cannot be considered but the same would be adjudicated during trial by examining the records and evidences led by the parties.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points before the court below at the appropriate stage of the trial.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-