IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42591 of 2007 MD. SUBAID Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04. 19.08.2010 While pressing this application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by the allegation it would appear that a suspicion has been raised that the occurrence had taken place at the instance of several lease holders of mines including the petitioner. It is thus contended that there is no sufficient material on record justifying framing of charge(s). He, however, concedes fairly that during the pendency of this application the charges have already been framed and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. I have perused the order impugned. Learned trial court has found and recorded that prosecution report indicates the complicity of the petitioner. The court has further observed that at the stage of framing of charge(s), it is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of materials and the evidence and, as such , the order has been passed. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, declines to interfere with the impugned order. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )