Patna High Court
Vimal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 217 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2014 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vimal Kumar, S/O Late Satyanarayan Mishra Resident of village- Gandhara,
Niwas, Shivpuri, Road No.-1, Police Station- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna-
800023.
2. Arun Kumar Mishra S/o Late Satya Narayan Mishra Resident of Village-
Gandhara Niwas, Shivpuri, Road no.-1, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna-
800023.
3. Amit Kumar S/o Shalendra Kumar Resident of village-Kannu Lal Lane,
P.S.- Jakkanpur, District-Patna- 800 001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The state of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Tara Kant Ojha Resident of Village- East Mahesh Nagar,
P.S.-Patliputra, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-08-2025
1. The instant revision under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of the BNSS challenges an order, dated 13th of
February, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, XXXth Court, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2018,
rejecting an application filed by the petitioners / accused
persons for their discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
Consequent upon the order of rejection of the petition for
discharge, the Trial Court fixed 25th of February, 2025, the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
date for framing of charge. The petitioners have preferred the
instant revision questioning correctness, legality and propriety
of the impugned order.
2. It is pertinent to state here that on 1st of
February, 2014, one Captain Suresh Kumar lodged a written
complaint, stating, inter alia that on 19th of January, 2014,
one Vimal Kumar, Arun Kumar Mishra and Anil Singh came in
front of one small gate of his house and opened fire aiming at
the house and fled away in the darkness of the area.
3. Subsequently, it was ascertained from the CCTV
footage that on the date of occurrence at about 09:00 P.M.,
the above-named accused persons assembled in a shop of one
Bunti. The CCTV footage also disclosed that accused Anil
Singh was talking to another through his mobile phone and
told them to assemble there. Then other accused persons
assembled at the place of occurrence at about 09:00 P.M. It is
also stated that a shop under the name and style of Bunti and
Babli, owned by one Jay Shankar and his son Sita Ram
remained open on the date of occurrence till 09:35 P.M. After
the accused persons reached the place, the shutter of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
Bunty and Babli shop remained half closed. The accused
persons switched off the light of the said shop and conducted
search for the informant. Involvement of the accused persons
in the incident of firing was established from the CCTV
footage. Local people could not speak out about the incident
due to fear of Vimal Kumar, Arun Kumar Mishra and Others.
The accused persons are habitual known offenders of the
locality. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered
Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2014, dated 1st of February,
2014, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 384, 452, 120B and 34
of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the
petitioners and others and took up the case for investigation.
Investigation culminated in filing charge-sheet against the
accused persons on 14th of August, 2014 under Sections
452, 506, 120B and 34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance of
offence against the petitioners.
4. The Lower Court Record shows that previously
an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on
behalf of the accused persons. The said application was
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna
vide an order, dated 26th of February, 2016 and the learned
ACJM-15th, Patna framed the charge against the petitioners
under Sections 452, 506, 120B and 34 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act on 11th of November, 2016.
Subsequently, another charge-sheet was filed against the
accused Amit Kumar under the above-mentioned penal
provisions.
5. In the above-mentioned case, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna passed an order dated
21st of March, 2018 for commitment of the records of Trial
No. 2285 of 2017 and 2286 of 2017 to the Court of Sessions
under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C. Finally the order of
commitment was passed on 10th of April, 2018.
6. The case was re-numbered and registered as
Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2018 in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge- XVII, Patna on 19th of August,
2019. The petitioners along with accused Anil Kumar filed an
application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. praying for
discharge.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
7. It is submitted by them that on the basis of the
statement made by the informant, Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64
of 2014 was registered against the above-named accused
persons and two others under Sections 307, 504, 506, 384,
120B, 452 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Police on completion of investigation, submitted Charge-sheet
No. 246, dated 8th of August, 2014 against Vimal Kumar,
Arun Kumar Mishra and Anil Singh. Investigation against
other accused persons were kept pending. Subsequently,
second Charge-sheet No. 201 of 2015 was filed by the police
on 26th of October, 2015 against accused Amit Kumar,
Petitioner No. 3 herein, keeping further investigation against
rest two accused persons pending.
8. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of
offence on the basis of the said charge-sheet also. Two
separate trials were commenced against the petitioners.
Subsequently, trial of both the cases were amalgamated
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and the
witnesses were examined and cross-examined.
9. After recording of evidence, the learned Judicial
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna passed order, dated 10th of
April, 2018, upon an application filed by the
prosecution/informant under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C.,
dated 3rd of February, 2018 with a prayer to commit the
entire case to the learned Court of Sessions. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna allowed the said petition
vide common order, dated 21st of March, 2018, whereby and
whereunder, the learned Magistrate prima facie found
sufficient material made out for offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, besides other offences
already charged against the accused persons.
10. Since offence punishable under Section 307 of
the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the learned Court of
Sessions, the entire case record, arising out of Patliputra P. S.
Case No. 64 of 2014, G.R. Case No. 719 of 2014, was
transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XXX
Court, Patna, before whom the petitioners filed an application
under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The said petition, on being
rejected, the petitioners have filed the instant revision.
11. It is further found from the records that in G.R.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
Case No. 719 of 2014 and 719A of 2014, arising out of
Patliputra P. S. Case No. 64 of 2014, the prosecution filed an
application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration of
charge and the said application was rejected by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Patna by an order, dated 8th
of September, 2017.
12. Against the said order, the informant filed Cr.
Revision Nos. 583 of 2017 and 584 of 2017 before the
learned Sessions Judge, Patna. Both the revisions were finally
disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th
Court at Patna, vide order, dated 4th of December, 2017. The
above-mentioned two revisions were allowed on contest by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna and the order,
dated 8th of September, 2017, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in G.R. Case No. 719 of 2014
and 719(A) of 2014 were set aside, directing the Trial Court
to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
13. In view of the order passed in the above-
mentioned revisions and on the basis of the evidence on
record, the order dated 10th of April, 2018 was passed.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
14. After commitment of the record, the petitioners
filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The said
application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XXX, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2018 vide
order, dated 13th of February, 2025.
15. It is contented on behalf of the petitioners that
alleged incident took place on 19th of January, 2014. F.I.R.
was lodged after a lapse of 13 days. In the F.I.R., no motive
of the accused persons was attributed. A long standing civil
dispute over landed property is going on between the
petitioners and the informant. Therefore, the investigation
filed a false complaint at Patliputra Police Station on the basis
of which, F.I.R., bearing Patliputra P. S. Case No. 64 of 2014
was registered.
16. It is further contended on behalf of the
petitioners that the allegation made by the informant does not
satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 of the I.P.C. Even
accepting the prosecution case in its face value, it is found
that the accused persons allegedly opened firing from the
road in front of small gate of the house of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that gun shot were fired to
commit murder of some named persons or that the petitioners
had intention to kill the informant or any other family member
of the house. In the absence of such evidence, no charge
under Section 307 of the I.P.C. can be framed and, therefore,
the order, dated 13th of February, 2025 suffers from illegality
and impropriety.
17. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State refers to the materials of case-diary, especially
CCTV footage, which has established that the above-named
petitioners opened fire aiming at the house of the informant
on the date of occurrence at about 09.00 P.M. The objection
raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the
F.I.R. was registered after 13 days of occurrence or that no
motive was attributed against the petitioners, may be well
taken at the time of final hearing of the case. Delay in lodging
F.I.R. or absence of motive cannot be dealt with at the time of
consideration of a petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It
would not be out of place to mention here that the learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners attempts that
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
a long standing civil dispute is going on between the parties,
therefore, the existence of civil dispute may also attribute as
motive of the petitioners.
18. It is needless to say that framing of charge is
an exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in terms of
Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., unless accused is discharged
under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.. Under both these
provisions, the Court is required to consider the "records of
the case" and the documents submitted therewith and after
hearing the parties may either discharge the accused or where
it appears to the Court and in its opinion there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall
frame charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Sections
exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that there
is ground to proceed against the accused and framing the
charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of
law. As such, the satisfaction of the Court in relation to the
existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading
to the offence is a sine qua non for existence of such
jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion while Section
228 is tentative. Where there is strong suspicion that the
accused has committed an offence, which, in put to trial, could
prove him guilty, the Trial Court is entitled to frame charge
against the accused persons.
19. Adjudicating the instant revision on the
principle stated hereinabove, this Court finds no reason for
interference against the impugned order, dated 13th of
February, 2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2018, by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -XXX,
Patna.
20. In this regard, we may refer to the well settled
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, reported in (1977) 4
SCC 39 as well as Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.
21. In view of the above discussions, I do not find
any merit in the instant Criminal Revision and the impugned
order, dated 13th of February, 2025, passed in Sessions Trial
No. 255 of 2018, by the learned Additional District and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.217 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
Sessions Judge -XXX, Patna, is, accordingly, affirmed.
22. The Criminal Revision is, therefore, dismissed
on contest.
23. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
24. Office is directed to send the lower court
records to the concerned Court.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 31.07.2025/04.08.2025
Uploading Date 08.08.2025
Transmission Date 08.08.2025
