IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23162 of 2008 1. BINDESHWARI PRASAD GUPTA 2. AWADHESH KUMAR GUPTA BOTH SONS OF SHOE NARAIN SAH, @ GUPTA, RESIDENTS OF CHAUDHARY TOLA, DEWARIA, P.S. DEWARIA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHARAT RAI, SON OF RAGHUNATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANGRA, P.S. DWARIA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 25.4.2011 Heard The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 2004 by which it has refused to discharge the petitioner. It has been submitted that initially charge sheet was submitted in the matter on which cognizance was taken but the Police after due permission of the court conducted further investigation. However, in the meanwhile, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the trial proceeded to the extent that all the prosecution witnesses were examined. At this stage a final report was submitted by the police before the Trial Court and, therefore, the petitioners prayed for discharge. The Trial Court rightly held that since the trial had proceeded and all the prosecution evidence had been adduced, there was no reason to discharge them since there was already material adduced during trial against the petitioners, and whatever material that had transpired subsequently during further 2 investigation, could not be a basis for discharge but could be agitated by the accused persons by way of defence. I see no illegality in this reasoning. It goes without saying that the petitioners will be at liberty to adduce evidence in their defence at the appropriate stage. With this observation, the application is disposed off. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)