IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.7758 OF 2008 1. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHTO 2. AWADH KISHORE PRASAD, SON OF RAM CHANDRA MAHTO 3. JANARDAN PRASAD, SON OF RAM CHANDRA PRASAD 4. SIREMDRA PRASAD, SON OF RAM CHANDRA PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUM NAGAR, POLICE STATION NAUTAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********* 2 19/01/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet was submitted in this case and the petitioners were not sent up for trial. The Court below has deferred from the final form submitted by the Police and took cognizance against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the material against them is vague and cannot form the basis of conviction. It is submitted that some of the witnesses have stated that the deceased had transferred some lands by executing a will in favour of petitioners 2, 3 and 4, his nephews. After the will, the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 changed their attitude towards the deceased which led him to rethink of the matter and he was considering for cancellation of the will. In the mean time, he was murdered and it was suspected that these petitioners 2 had a hand in the murder of the deceased. On the basis of these materials, the Court below has deferred with the opinion of the Investigating Officer of this case. At this stage, this Court finds that no ground is made out for interference with the order taking cognizance. The question whether the material that has come on record is sufficient or not to convict the petitioners would be a question which has to be considered at the time of framing of the charge. This application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)