Sonu Singh vs The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner has challenged the order refusing to discharge of the order dated 05.06.2018 passed in S. Tr. No. 107 of 2014 arising out of Gwalpara (Arar) P.S. Case No. 103 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. by learned A.D.J.-II^nd, Madhepura.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after thorough investigation, final form exonerating the petitioner was filed by the investigating agency, but the learned Magistrate, differing with the final form, in a mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind, has taken cognizance against the petitioner and even though there was no sufficient grounds for proceeding, the discharge petition of the petitioner has been rejected. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not present on the alleged date and time of the occurrence at the place of occurrence and was rather in his college where he was pursuing his B. Tech course. It has further been submitted that prior to the lodging of the present case, the father of this petitioner had lodged a case against the prosecution party for the offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and other ancillary Sections. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner is a meritorious student, his name has purposely been given in the present case to spoil his career, whereas the father of the petitioner was brutally assaulted and his body is still affected by injuries inflicted upon him. It has further been submitted that the impugned order refusing to discharge is bad in law and erroneous on facts and the same is liable to be set aside.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the record. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner is a matter of defence, which can be considered at appropriate stage. Moreover, there is specific allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Sarvesh to have assaulted the deceased. A report regarding status of the case was called for by order dated 02.04.2026, in compliance of which a report has been submitted by the Trial Court, in which it has been stated that charges have been framed in this case and out of 11 charge-sheet witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and the stage of the case has considerably been changed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this application, being devoid of merits, is accordingly rejected.