IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11194 of 2011 Ramswaroop Sahani @ Saroop Sahani Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 18/11/2011 Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 5.2.2011 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge in accordance with Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 54/2009. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner came through the mouth of spy. Subsequently, after 15 to 20 days of occurrence one Tej Narayan Sah was examined under paragraph-101 of the case diary who had disclosed his name. Further submitted that he happens to be aged about 60 years while as per FIR the age group of miscreants has been shown in between 25 to 40 years. Then submitted that the prosecution had claimed identification of miscreants. However, after apprehension of petitioner, he was not put on TIP. Therefore, submission is that no material subsists against the petitioner to justify the continuance of proceeding against him. 2 On the other hand, learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that for the purpose of framing charge grave suspicion is sufficient and for that there happens to be statement of witness whereunder he had claimed identification of the petitioner as one of the miscreants. Whether the statement of witnesses is reliable or not is a matter of course to be dealt with under trial. For the present, grave suspicion will justify presence of accused at trial. Petitioner’s name though by uncorroborated testimony of Tej Narayan Sah has come out which, for the present purpose would serve the purpose and in the aforesaid background, I do not see it a fit case whereunder prayer of the petitioner could be entertained. Consequent thereupon, the petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)