IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30214 of 2007 Vijay Sharma, Son of Jageshwar Sharma, Resident of Village Dhumra, Police Station Ghosi (Hulasganj), District Jehanabad. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. The Officer Incharge, Hulasganj Police Station, Hulasganj, District Jehanabad. ---------- Opposite Parties ----------- 5 16.2.2010 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maya Nand Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The order dated 17.2.2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been sought to be assailed by Mr. Roy on a number of grounds. He would submit that first of all the impugned order does not fulfill the test of a judicial order, inasmuch as, no reasons has been given in support of the conclusion arrived at by the court for rejecting the petition. He would further submit that merely because the petitioner in capacity of the informant of a police case had written letter to the Human Right Commission or to the Inspector General of Police alleging certain discrepancy in the investigation or 2 the role played by the local police officers, that by itself would not constitute an offence under Section 501(B) of the Indian Penal Code. He would also submit that if such prosecution at the instance of the police is allowed to continue, no person would like to support the prosecution version and all the police cases will have to be guided by the whims and fancies of the investigating agency. Dr. Jha, appearing for the opposite party no.2 would submit that while the two other issues namely appreciating the materials for establishing the prosecution under Section 501(B) of the Indian Penal Code could be gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage including while examining the prayer of the petitioner for discharge under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., he would find it difficult to defend the impugned order being completely non-speaking in nature. This Court having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances and noticing that the impugned order does not record any reason whatsoever for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner would find the same 3 to be unsustainable in the eyes of law. Any judicial order will have to at least fulfil the test of application of mind. Merely because there has been a case in which charge- sheet has been filed by the police and cognizance has been taken, would not mean that if an application on certain materials is filed seeking discharge, the same would be mechanically rejected by applying the same standard of there being a prima facie case. The two stages being quite different, the court below at the stage of considering the prayer for discharge will have to make its application of mind to the issue raised in the application seeking discharge. That having been not done in the impugned order, this Court would set aside the same and remit the matter back for passing an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application, only to the extent indicated above, is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)