- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 221 of 2011, whereby, the application med by the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr PC, has been rejected by the Court below, fixing the case for framing of the charge. The petitioner has been made accused in Bishunpur P.S. Case No.1 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 49 of 2010 and it appears from the FIR that a police truck was exploded, followed by the encounter between the police party and the members of the extremists group in which, seven police officials were killed and several others were injured. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of one of the injured police officials in the occurrence, wherein, it is stated that during the occurrence, one Nakul Yadav who was one of the extremists involved in the occurrence, informed about the occurrence on phone to Anmol Da, Subodhjee (i.e. the petitioner) and Deo Kumar Singh, informing that the work had been accomplished, the arms of the police had been looted and the police personnel were killed. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that after investigation, charge -sheet has been filed against the accused persons, including the petitioner, and the cognizance was also taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Session. In the Court of Session, the petitioner filed application for discharge, which appears to have been filed mainly on the ground that there was nothing to show that it was actually the petitioner who was informed on phone by one of thee extremists that the work had been accomplished. It was submitted in the Court below that the petitioner was apprehended by Patrakar Nagar Police at Patna on 15.1.2010 itself, at about 4 p.m., in connection with Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010. It was accordingly, submitted that when the petitioner was arrested on the date of occurrence itself, possibly no telephonic conversion could be made with the petitioner. The Court below however, on the basis of the materials brought on record, found that there was nothing to show that in fact, the petitioner was apprehended by the Patna Police of 15.1.2010 and on the basis of the materials brought on record, the offence was made out against the petitioner and accordingly, the discharge application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal. Learned counsel has submitted that in the FIR, it is only stated that the said Nakul Yadav only informed one Subodh Jee. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the said Subodh Jee is actually the petitioner and accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner was actually informed about the occurrence by one of the extremists. Learned counsel has taken certain other points also in this revision and has further submitted that since the charge -sheet has been submitted for offences under the Explosive Substance Act and the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but there was no sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under the said Acts and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal on this ground also. However, it may be stated that during the pendency of this application, the counter affidavit has been filed wherein the sanction order issued on 14.9.2012 against the petitioner for his prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been brought on record as Annexure B.;