Om Kumar vs State of Bihar

Abhijit Sinha, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 15.12.2007 passed by Sri B.B. Pandey, 9th Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 632/2007, whereby he has rejected the petition u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for his discharge.

It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the F.I.R. it was clear that the same was lodged three days after the date of occurrence and that the informant had merely raised suspicion against the petitioner without any evidence. The Learned Counsel also sought to submit that in paragraph 6 of the case diary the mother of the victim has stated that she had seen her son in the house at 1 P.M. Since the petitioner himself suggest that mere suspicion has been raised against the petitioner it is clear that in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh reported in 1977 SC 2018 that where there is slightest suspicion charge must be framed, there does not appear any illegality in the impugned order.

That apart it is also clear from the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the dead body of Vikash Kumar, the victim boy was recovered from the rented house of the petitioner on the strength of the confessional statement made before the Police. After this there is no scope for the petitioner to escape from the trial by resorting to the provisions of Section 227 Cr.P.C.

That apart it is also clear from the impugned order that several paragraphs in the case diary have indicated the participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime. In view of the discussions made above I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.