IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24334 of 2007 BHOLA RAI, s/o Late Fakira Rai, resident of village- Rusulpur Mubarak, P. S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali …. Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nawal Rai s/o Yogi Rai resident of village- Rusulpur Mubarak, P. S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali. … Opposite parties ----------- 5. 04.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order taking cognizance for offence under Section 302 and other allied sections of Indian Penal Code would submit that there is absolute want of any material in the case-diary so as to connect the petitioner in any manner in the alleged occurrence. He would further submit that in the first information report the source of information for implication of the petitioner is through Dular Rai and Yadunandan Rai who in their statement before the police in paragraph 47 and 48 of the case-diary have completely denied the said stand. He would further submit that as against other co-accused with similar allegation, police till date has not filed any charge-sheet and only because the petitioner was 2 apprehended, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. In the opinion of this court, cognizance is taken for an offence and the precise allocation for individual allegation can only be done at the stage of framing of charge. That is how, the provision under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted by the Apex Court and this Court. In that view of the matter, what ever has been stated by the petitioner in this application or has been submitted as recorded above can still be raised by him at the time of framing of the charge. The court below at that stage is expected to consider the prayer for discharge of the petitioner after taking into account the entire materials on record. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)