Md.izhar, and ors. 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......of the arms act against seven accused persons, including four petitioners in bakhtiyarpur police station case no. 81 of 2003 and traveling the record to the court of sri azazuddin, judicial magistrate, 1st class, saharsa for commitment .3. relevant facts of this case is that bakhtiyarpur police station case no. 81 of 2003 was instituted on 18.07.2003 for the offences under sections 302/34 of the indian penal code and 27 of the arms act, on the fardbeyan of one sahni khatoon against seven persons including the four petitioners. after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against three non- petitioners, keeping the investigation pending against four petitioners vide charge-sheet no. 107 dated 13.10.2003.4. on receipt of the charge-sheet, learned chief judicial magistrate on going through the materials took cognizance for the offences not only against the three persons against whom charge-sheet was submitted, but against the four petitioners also against whom the police kept the investigation pending.5. the main grievance against the impugned order as appears from the application was that the court below without taking care of pendency of investigation against the petitioners took cognizance in the case against all the seven persons including the petitioners.6. as it appears from the record of this case that vide order dated 16.05.2006, admitting the application for hearing, police was directed to proceed with the supplementary investigation, so far as the petitioners are concerned.7. subsequently, when matter was taken for hearing on 18.08.2010 none was in a position to state actual state of affairs as regard to the stage or outcome of investigation with respect to the petitioners, accordingly a report was called for from the court below.8. the court below has submitted its report vide letter no. 19 dated 30th august, 2010 along with supplementary case diary clearly indicating that police has not only concluded the investigation by 16.07.2009, but also.....