Hari Kishore Rai @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar @ Hari Kishore Rai vs The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33193 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010854602016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2013 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Hari Kishore Rai @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar @ Hari Kishore Rai, son
of Sri Rajendra Rai, resident of village – Gopalpur, P.S. - Paru, District
– Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Amrendra Kumar, son of Indu Bhushan Prasad Singh, R/o – Vill. -
Matwari, P.S. - Sadar, District – Hazaribagh, A/P, Deputy Director,
Paradip, Haldiya – Barauni Pipeline, Barauni, P.S. - Barauni, District –
Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate
For the State : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the IOC : Mr.Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation (in
short the ‘IOC’).
2. The present quashing petition has been filed to set
aside the order dated 16.06.2016, passed in Sessions Tr.
No.-105/2014 arising out of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No.-11 of
rd
2013, whereby and whereunder learned 3 Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai dismissed the discharge

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33193 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/4
prayer made by the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on 13.01.2013 on
the basis of written complaint of one Amrendra Kumar, son
of Indu Bhushan Prasad Singh, who is Deputy Manager
(Operation) of Paradeep Haldiya Barauni Pipe Line, Barauni,
Begusarai.
4. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the
informant, namely, Amrendra Kumar has stated in his
written complaint that on 12.01.2013 at about 9.30 A.M.,
he was informed by the personnel of the department that in
the field near Mankatha Railway Station bridge, the oil has
been found spread and further, during course of inspection,
it was found that in the main Pipeline of oil, two valves were
found fitted in the pipeline also and in the prevailing
condition, it was presumed that a group of persons were
involved in committing theft of crude oil by adding extra
valves in the pipeline.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that during course of investigation,
some of the apprehended co-accused persons disclosed that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33193 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/4
one person namely, Rajesh (petitioner), who is the resident
of Hazipur, was also involved in the occurrence being a gang
member as to commit theft of petroleum from the pipeline of
Indian Oil Corporation. It is submitted that the name of
petitioner is Hari Kishore Rai and he is resident of District -
Muzaffarpur.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil
Corporation submitted that after investigation the occurrence
was found true and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted
against the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner
was named by several apprehended co-accused persons,
whereafter learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379, 120(B)
of the I.P.C. and Sections 15 & 16 of the Indian Petroleum
Pipeline Act, 1962 (Amended Act, 2011) against petitioner
and other co-accused persons.
7. It is pointed out that the petitioner is disputing his
own identification that he is not the Rajesh of Hazipur, rather
he is Hari Kishore Rai of Muzaffarpur. It is submitted that
this disputed fact can be ascertained during the trial only and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33193 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/4
not while deciding the present petition.
8. This Court is convinced with the argument as
advanced by learned counsel appearing for the IOC. The
issue, as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, with
regard to disputing the identification of the petitioner, which
certainly cannot be decided while hearing the present
petition, rather same can be decided only during the trial.
9. In view of aforesaid, the present petition is devoid
of any merit. Accordingly, same stands dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date 03.11.2026