IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33348 of 2011 Md. Ekramul Haque @ Md. Ekram Abdul Karim Vill Maulanadih Ps Chhabilapur Nalanda ………….. Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …………….. Opposite party ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Birendra Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. *************** 02. 08.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional P.P. Petitioner, Md. Ekramul Haque has challenged the order of cognizance dated 16.08.2011 passed by learned CJM, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby and whereunder he has been summoned to face trial for an offence cognizable under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 326 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Chhabilapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2011. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although he happens to be named in the FIR, witnesses have named him during course of investigation, but being a government servant and posted at Gopalganj, his plea was tested during course of investigation and was found to be correct. The Investigating Authority had found that on the alleged date and time of occurrence he was at 2 Gopalganj and so after verifying his alibi, final report was submitted against him. However, learned CJM differing therefrom also summoned the petitioner. He also submitted that when the complicity of petitioner is ruled out by cogent and reliable evidence, which has been tested during the course of investigation then in that event, there was no occasion for the learned CJM to differ from the conclusion arrived at. As such the order impugned is fit to be set aside. At the other hand, the learned APP submitted that the learned lower court after going through the materials available in the case diary different from the opinion of the IO and summoned the petitioner, which happens to be in accordance with law and can not be interfered at this stage. Be that as it may, the plea of alibi happens to be the factual, which can be tested and verified by the court during course of trial and for that reason, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order impugned, consequent thereupon petition is rejected. SKM (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)