IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4804 of 2009 BINOD SINGH SAUMITRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 30.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner questions the order of cognizance under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Penal Code. The submission is that the F.I.R. does not allege that he granted the loan fraudulently. The defence is that he was himself misled by the person who applied for loan but endorsed the documents believing in his bona fide. The allegations are of an accused having obtained loan from the bank by impersonating the sureties and producing original deed without her knowledge. This Court is not satisfied to interfere with the prosecution at this very initial stage of cognizance. What may or may not have transpired against the petitioner during investigation shall now be available in the case diary since charge sheet is stated to have been submitted. The application is disposed with the 2 observation that if the petitioner prefers any application for discharge on basis of the material collected during investigation with regard to him, the same is required to be considered and disposed by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)