IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29342 of 2009 1. Shyam Kumar, Son of Kavindra Singh, 2. Gopal Kumar, Son of Kaushlendra Singh. Resident of village-Narayanpur, P.S.-Narhat, District-Nawada. ……….Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………..Opp. Party. ----------- 2/ 11.01.2010 The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 06.05.2008. An occurrence took place in which Akhileshwar Singh is said to have been killed. In this case suspicion was raised against Lalan Kumar Madhuker, Kavinder Singh, Shyam Kumar (petitioner), Gopal Kumar (petitioner) and Kaushlendra Singh. It is said that they may have been involved in the occurrence as there was some enmity between the deceased and accused persons. A NARCO Test was held on 02.06.2008 and in the NARCO Test one of the accused Subodh Singh has stated that Ashok had conspired with two or three persons including Bijay Singh and Fucho Singh. In this case Kavindra singh and Kaushlendra Singh were not sent up for trial as the police submitted final form in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had surrendered and were granted bail and it appears that it is only for this reason, that the petitioners had been charge sheeted in this case, although, there is no substantial material against them, which would lead to conclusion that the petitioners were involved in this case. 2 It is submitted that Kavindra Singh and Kaushlendra Singh, who are similarly situated vis-à-vis these petitioners, have not been charge sheeted in this case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, there is no evidence except that statement of the witnesses, who have said that these petitioners were sitting on a Bolero Jeep and were moving towards Nawadah. It is not the case of the prosecution or the witnesses who have been examined in the case diary that the petitioners were seen anywhere near the place of occurrence alleged or were heard conspiring for committing the offences in the manner alleged, were seen in the company of the deceased prior to the occurrence and it is only on suspicion that the petitioners have been made an accused in this case and are to face trial which is absolutely unwarranted. Counsel for the informant on the other hand, submits that there is evidence in paragraph Nos. 11, 263, 264, 308, and 315 of the case diary against these petitioners. Considering all aspects of the matter, it would be proper for the petitioners to raise these issues at the time of framing of charge and the court should examine the relevant paragraphs mentioned in this order or any other material or point raised in order to determine whether there is a ‘strong suspicion’ that the petitioners were involved in this occurrence. 3 This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sanjeet/ (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)