Patna High Court
Shambhu Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The alibi defence must be decided during the trial, so the quash application is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Shambhu Prasad Singh and Uday Shankar Prasad Singh, were charged under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sujit Kumar, alleged by his brother Chandan Kumar. The petitioners filed a quash application claiming they were not present at the scene and pleaded alibi. The State opposed, stating that the alibi had already been investigated and a charge‑sheet was filed. The Patna High Court held that an alibi defence can only be examined during the trial and not through a pre‑trial quash petition. Consequently, the court found the application without merit and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition for quash of criminal proceedings can be entertained on the ground of an alibi defence before trial.
- Whether the trial court was correct in refusing to discharge the accused under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- conspiracy
- common intention
- alibi
- quash petition
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10148 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2012 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Shambhu Prasad Singh S/O Late Raj Mangal Singh VILLAGE-
GOPALPUR, PS. SAKRA, DIST. MUZAFFARPUR.
2. UDAY SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH @ NUNNU @ UDAY SHANKAR
S/O SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, PS. SAKRA,
DIST. MUZAFFARPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
04.11.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-19th,
Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 296/2023 arising out of G.R.
No. 2275/2012 in connection with Sakar P.S. Case No. 192 of
2012 dated 13.06.2012 whereby the learned trial court has
refused to discharge the petitioners from the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, namely,
Chandan Kumar alleged that on 13.06.2012 at about 05:00 A.M.
his elder brother, namely, Sujit Kumar went to drop his elder
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10148 of 2024(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
sister, namely, Shiwani Thakur @ Jhuni Thakur at Dholi railway
station along with three persons from Sundarpur village and one
person, namely, Rakesh Kumar of Gopalpur. At about 20:40
O’clock, after departure of the train, they came out of the station
and his brother Sujit Kumar went to Jatkauli on motorcycle, but
he could not reach his home by 10 P.M., then the informant tried
to contact him on his mobile but his mobile was switched off.
Thereafter, the informant reached at Sakra police station, there
he came to know that one dead body of a young boy has been
found from the Bhuta Chowk beside the N.H. on 12.06.2012 at
about 4 P.M. and the photo of the deceased was shown to him
and on seeing the photo, he identified the dead body to be of his
elder brother Sujit Kumar. Further, he claimed that petitioners
had murdered his elder brother. The petitioner no.1 (Shambhu
Singh) is his cousin uncle (Mama) with whom a land dispute is
going on since long back which is pending in the court and
before this the petitioner no.1 (Shambhu Singh) threatened to
kill his brother. It is further alleged that they took away his
mobile, Rs. 2,000/- and documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to
paragraphs 10, 12, 14, 15 and 18 of the present quashing
application has tried to impress upon this Court primarily on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10148 of 2024(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
issue that he was not present at the place of occurrence and thus
he claimed a plea of alibi.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the plea of alibi was
investigated upon and after thorough investigation charge-sheet
came to be submitted against the petitioners followed by taking
of cognizance against the petitioners.
6. This Court finds that the case at hand is under
Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the
plea of alibi of the petitioners by way of defence can only be
decided during the course of trial.
7. Resultantly, this quashing application is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.