Deeraj Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar

Deeraj Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Disposition Application allowed Court Patna Decided Mar 28, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/123613

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/123613
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
Decided On: Mar 28, 2006
Case Number: Cr. Rev. No. 733/2005
Subject: ;Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: ;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deeraj Kumar

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur, in G.R No. 66l/94(Tr.No .468/2005) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.
2. According to the prosecution, on chase the Police party apprehended three accused persons including the petitioner. On search nothing has been recovered from the petitioner whereas from the possession of the other two a

Excerpt

- .....and chhura have been recovered. petitioner filed application for discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order.3. mr. suresh prasad singh no .1 appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the materials collected during the course of investigation did not show the petitioner's complicity in the crime. he points out that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner excepting the clothes which he was wearing. mr. lala kailash behari prasad, additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state submits that petitioners complicity in the crime can not be ruled out. he, however concedes that nothing has been recovered from the possess -ion of the petitioner.4. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the opinion that in absence of any material showing the petitioner's complicity in the crime, the learned magistrate ought not to have rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. as stated earlier that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and there is no further material showing his complicity in the crime. 5. accordingly, the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the judicial magistrate, ist class, saraastipur, in g.r. no. 661/94 (tr.no .468/2005) so far he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge, is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the case.6. application stands allowed.

Full Judgment

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur, in G.R No. 66l/94(Tr.No .468/2005) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.

2. According to the prosecution, on chase the Police party apprehended three accused persons including the petitioner. On search nothing has been recovered from the petitioner whereas from the possession of the other two accused persons country made pistols, cartridges and Chhura have been recovered. Petitioner filed application for discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No .1 appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the materials collected during the course of investigation did not show the petitioner's complicity in the crime. He points out that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner excepting the clothes which he was wearing. Mr. Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioners complicity in the crime can not be ruled out. He, however concedes that nothing has been recovered from the possess -ion of the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in absence of any material showing the Petitioner's complicity in the crime, the learned Magistrate ought not to have rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge. As stated earlier that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and there is no further material showing his complicity in the crime.

5. Accordingly, the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saraastipur, in G.R. No. 661/94 (Tr.No .468/2005) so far he has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for discharge, is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the case.

6. Application stands allowed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2006 Same Parties Deeraj Kumar vs The State of Bihar Same Subject ;Criminal Same Judge Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

;Criminal