IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.28442 OF 2008 MANTU YADAV, SON OF SHRI BHUBNESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF CHAIRAIYA TAND, POLICE STATION RAMPUR, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. ASHOK KUMAR CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE MR. RAM DAS SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ***************** 2 26/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 31.05.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2007 (Rampur Police Station Case No. 172 of 2003 by which the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya has refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences under Section 302 and other allied of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only allegation that has come against the petitioner in the entire case diary is that the co-accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased and told him that this petitioner wants to meet him. The dead body of the deceased was discovered behind the jail. There is some allegation that a signature of the grand father of the informant was taken which was converted into a sale deed, which is the reason for the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s alibi has 2 been considered during the investigation and it is said that the petitioner was operated on 29.02.2003 for Appendicitis by one Dr. A. K. Singh and the occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 28.02.2003 and as such the involvement of the petitioner in the said occurrence has become highly doubtful. The points raised above are to be considered during the trial inasmuch as the Court cannot evaluate the importance of the evidence and discharge the petitioner on this ground. The question of alibi also has to be proved during the trial. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Court below has considered all the materials and arguments that have been placed before it and has held that the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner can only be considered during the trial. Accordingly, I find no illegality or anomaly in the impugned order dated 31.05.2008. In the result, this application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)