Uday Singh @ Uday Shankar vs The State of Bihar and Another

Madhavendra Saran, J.—This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed to set aside the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in ST. No. 330 of 2003 arising out of Deep Nagar P.S. Case No. 41 of 1999/G.R. No. 468 of 1999, whereby the prayer for discharge has been refused. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Janardan Pandey gave Fardbeyan that in the night of 11.3.1999 he was sleeping in his room situated on the first floor of his house and the door of the room was opened. At about 12.30 A.M. four miscreants came, to the roof of the house. They demanded informant''s rifle. The informant saw them in the light of electricity. They also caught hold the informant''s son Vijay Shankar Pandey and threatened to kill him. The informant''s wife on the instruction of the informant opened the door of the room and thereafter the miscreants took away licence, rifle and several cartridges. They also snatched ear ring from the ear of the informant''s wife. The informant identified Arvind Singh who is son-in-law of his villager Jagdish Singh and Bijendra Singh. He also identified one other accused. It appears that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner Uday Singh alias Uday Shankar and others f6r the offence u/s 395 IPC and after cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Session. It appears that now the case is pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda where the petitioner filed a petition u/s 227 of the Code to discharge him from the case but the court rejected his prayer by the impugned order dated 14.10.2004.

It has been argued that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor any recovery has been made from his possession. He has also not been put on T.I. Parade. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not confess before the Police nor any accused named him before the Police. He also submitted that during investigation no witness has named the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer but conceded to the above factual position of the case.

The purpose of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the accusation made against accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against him. Now the position in the present case is that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. There is also no recovery from his possession. As submitted he has also not been put on T.I. Parade and no witness named him before the Police. In absence of any legal evidence, the mere suspicion would not be sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned dated 14.10.2004 passed against the petitioner is set aside.