IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31458 of 2011 Nawab & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- For petitioners:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Debey, Adv For the State:- Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ---------- 2/ 23/11/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. Also gone through the order impugned. The order impugned has been passed as per direction of the revisional court confirmed by the Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17018/2010 by which the earlier order of cognizance was quashed and the matter was remitted for passing of order afresh after taking into account of the materials available on the record. The order impugned suggests that petitioners who have not been sent up for trial were named by the witnesses recorded under paragraphs- 13, 14, 31, 32 of the case diary. Neither learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of submission nor by way of pleading controverted the same. For the purpose of taking of cognizance and summoning the accused, a prima facie, materials that too, to the extent of suspicion has been found sufficient. In the present scenario, named by the four witnesses is sufficient to 2 justify the order of summoning. Hence, I find no merit in the prayer. Consequent thereupon, the petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)