IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6341 of 2015

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-1990 Thana- SHEOHAR District- Sheohar

======================================================

1.

Baliram Singh son of late Shyam Nandan Singh

2.

Abhiram Singh, son of late Shyam Nandan Singh

3.

Krishna Kant Singh, son of Shri Baliram Singh All resident of village

Fatehpur, P.S. and District Sheohar

4.

Daya Shankar Singh, son of late Uday Bahadur Singh resident of village

Khartari, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 27-06-2019

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Sheohar P.S.Case No.17 of 1990 was registered

under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C. as well as under

Section 27 of the Arms Act on the fardbeyan of Chitranjan

Singh. During investigation, one of the injured, namely, Abhay

Singh died, hence, Section 302 I.P.C. was also added.

Chitranjan Singh had also sustained firearm injury.

3. Bereft of other details, allegation in the FIR is that

petitioner-Baliram Singh, petitioner-Krishna Kant Singh and

petitioner-Abhiram Singh armed with gun and others were there

when the informant was returning from the polling station. As

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6341 of 2015 dt.27-06-2019

2/5

soon as informant reached near the house of the accused person,

the person holding firearm fired causing injury to the informant

and others. After investigation of the case, the police submitted

chargesheet only against accused-Ragho Singh, Krishna Mangal

Singh and Anirudh Singh only for offence under Sections 304

I.P.C. The petitioners, though named in the FIR, were not sent

up for trial by the police. The cognizance was taken and later on

charges were framed against the sent up accused for offence

under Section 304 I.P.C. and other sections. After examination

of some of the prosecution witnesses, the informant filed a

petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the

petitioners to face trial. The prayer was refused by order dated

09.06.2008. The informant challenged the said order before this

Court in Cr. Misc. No. 25182 of 2008 and by order dated

27.03.2012, the order dated 09.06.2008 was set aside and the

matter was remitted back to the learned Trial Judge to pass fresh

order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

4. Thereafter, the order dated 07.09.2013 was passed

in S.Tr. No.65 of 1999 summoning the petitioners under Section

319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for offences under Sections 307,324 and

302 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive

Substance Act and 27 of Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6341 of 2015 dt.27-06-2019

3/5

5. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in

Cr. Misc. No. 49428 of 2013 which was withdrawn on the

prayer of the petitioners by order dated 20.08.2014 vide

Annexure-4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition before the

learned Trial Judge not to frame charge under Section 302 I.P.C.

rather to frame charge under Section 304 I.P.C. as done against

other accused. The prayer has been refused by the impugned

order dated 11.11.2014 mainly for the reason that a criminal

court has no power to review its own order dated 07.09.2013,

whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial under

Sections 307,324 and 302 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and

4 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It

is made clear that there is allegation against some of the accused

of hurling bomb.

6. Contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that some of the co-accused are facing trial for

offence under S