Bibi Islaman, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar.

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......in bahera p.s. case no.89 of 2000. by the said order the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 366a and 376/109 of the indian penal code against all the accused persons differing with the police report.2. short fact of the case is that a case was instituted against the petitioners and one another for the offences under sections 363, 365 and 366a of the indian penal code which was registered as benipur bahera p.s. case no.89 of 2000. during the course of investigation the victim was recorved and subsequently charge sheet was submitted against only one accused namely md. chhedi. after submission of charge sheet, the learned magistrate examined the materials available in the case diary and discussing each and every material diferred with the police report and took cognizance of the offences even against the petitioners, who were not forwarded by the police.3. after arguing the case at length mr.imteyaz ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition so that the petitioners may raise all the points at the time of charge in the court below.4. mr.hirday prasad singh, learned addl. public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. he submits that during investigation sufficient materials were brought on record showing involvement of all the accused persons.5. this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners keeping in view the fact that the offence was serious in nature and the matter remained pending before this court for a long period. this court on 6.12.2001, while admitting the case, directed that during pendency of this application further proceeding in the court below with regard to the petitioners shall remain stayed and, as such, the matter remained pending for such a long period.6. i have perused the impugned order i.e. the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by the.....