IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15888 of 2006 BHARAT DUBEY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER ----------- 6. 4.8.2008. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Phulendra Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2002 arising out of Madanpur P.S. Case No.56 of 1998, whereby a petition for their discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Initially the aforesaid case was registered against unknown persons on the basis of information given by Dafadar Awadhesh Yadav who stated that on receiving information at about 7 A.M. on 23.4.1998 that a dead body of a young man was lying in the field of Umesh Singh, he went to the P.O. and found the dead body of an unknown person, aged about 23-24 years. The dead body could not be identified and accordingly the police was informed. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though they are not named in the F.I.R., it was only after a lapse of seven months from the date of the F.I.R. that the I.O. of the case submitted a request before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, for issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioners and accordingly warrants of arrest was issued against these petitioners. - 2 - It was further sought to be pointed out with reference to the order of this Court dated 21.4.1999 passed in Criminal Misc. No.6356 of 1999 wherein the petitioners had prayed for anticipatory bail, this Court had observed “learned counsel for the State has failed to show any motive for which the petitioners could be said to have committed the murder of the deceased.” The learned counsel further sought to submit with reference to the impugned order that there was no cogent material in the case diary for framing of charge against the accused and the petitioners have been implicated by interested witnesses only due to grudge and land dispute. I have perused the impugned order and it appears therefrom that the learned Presiding Judge has clearly dealt with the matters available in the case diary which has raised suspicion of the petitioners being involved in the crime. The learned Presiding Judge has referred to the paragraphs 7, 11 and 13 of the case diary where the witnesses and father of the deceased have stated during investigation that the petitioners were involved in conspiracy and commission of murder of the deceased. The father of the deceased has also admitted about the presence of land dispute between him and the petitioners and of a civil suit in respect thereof pending before the Munsif, Aurangabad. The father has also submitted that it was due to enmity that the petitioners had committed the murder of his son. The law in respect of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. is now well settled beyond cavil. It is by now well settled that at the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which are to be read in juxtaposition is - 3 - for ensuring that the court should be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and that there is some material for proceeding against them. The court is not required to examine and weigh the evidence meticulously as is done at the stage of a full fledged trial to find out whether on the materials placed the trial will end in conviction or otherwise. At this stage a mere suspicion is sufficient for the court to frame charges. As there is material in the case diary which has led to the satisfaction of the learned court below to form an opinion that there was some material to proceed against the accused persons which is supported by cogent reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, it is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)