Karuneshwar Singh @ Koreneshwar Singh vs The State of Bihar

This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

seeking quashing of the order dated 26.04.2016 whereby the petition

filed by the petitioner in the light of the order dated 17.11.2014 passed

by this Court in Cr.Misc. No.12252 of 2014 whereby the proceeding

so far as co-accused Rajendra singh is concerned was quashed has

been dismissed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhagalpur in connection with Sessions Trial No.948 of 2013 arising

out of Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No.480 of 2008, initially registered

under Sections 307, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

"the IPC ") but later on section 302 of the IPC was added.

The petitioner is a named accused in connection with the

aforesaid Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No.480 of 2008. After

completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet.

Thereafter, the court of Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

The order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner before

this Court in an application under Section 482 of the CrPC. However,

the said application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

29.11.2012 passed in Cr.Misc. No.9558 of 2012 with liberty to the

petitioner to raise all the points at the stage of framing of charge.

Subsequently, the charges were framed inter alia under Section 302 of

the IPC against the petitioner and others vide order dated 06.03.2014.

The petitioner did not file any application before this Court

challenging the order whereby charges were framed against him.

However, co-accused Rajendra Singh, who was also sent up for trial

did file an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge

before the trial court, which was dismissed vide order dated

05.02.2014. The said order dated 05.02.2014 was challenged before

this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC by the aforesaid Rajendra

Singh. From the order dated 17.11.2014 passed in Cr.Misc. No.12252

of 2014, it would transpire that the application of the aforesaid

Rajendra Singh was allowed and the order whereby his application for

discharge filed under Section 227 of the CrPC was dismissed was set

aside by this Court. By the said order, this Court had also directed the

trial court to look into the records once again and if it is found that

there are other persons who are similarly placed as Rajendra Singh, it

shall pass necessary orders discharging them as well. After the

aforesaid order was passed by this Court in case of co-accused

Rajendra Singh, the petitioner filed an application before the trial

court seeking parity with Rajendra Singh. It was argued on his behalf

that there is no material to proceed against him and, hence, he should

also be discharged from the case. However, vide order dated

26.04.2016 the trial court rejected the application holding that there is

sufficient material in the case diary against the petitioner.

While arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner

has fairly conceded that after framing of charge certain witnesses have

also been examined during trial. However, she has contended that

save and except hypothetical presumption and wild suspicion, there is

no material in the case diary to connect the petitioner with the alleged

offence. She has submitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly

identical to that of co-accused Rajendra Singh, whose application for

discharge has already been allowed by this Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

State has submitted that there are strong circumstantial evidence

against the petitioner right from the beginning. He has submitted that

charges can be framed even if there is a case of strong suspicion. He

has further contended that in view of the fact that the trial is going on

and certain witnesses have also been examined, it would not be proper

for this Court to abruptly close the trial.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel

for the State.

As the charges were framed as back as on 06.03.2014

and during trial certain witnesses have also been examined, it would

not be proper for this Court to close the case. It is well settled in law

that meticulous examination of material at the stage of framing of

charge is not permissible. An accused can be discharged only if there

is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. At this stage, in

view of the strong circumstantial evidence in the case diary, it cannot

be said that there is no material to proceed against the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this

application. It is dismissed accordingly.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner would be at liberty to

raise all the points available to him at the final stage of argument.