IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5073 of 2009 SHATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 07.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Questioning the order dated 14.1.2009, refusing to discharge the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the submission is that he is answerable only for a part of the works. The next submission is that even before the F.I.R. was lodged he had issued notice to the Contractor/Agent for non-completion of works and that the works had, in fact, been completed before the institution of the F.I.R. This discharge application preferred before the court below was placed during arguments and has been perused. No such grounds have been taken before the court below. The submissions in the discharge application are extremely generalized in nature. The impugned order of rejection arrived at a finding that there were materials on record for conspiracy by alleged non-completion of works and siphoning of Government Money illegaly. The materials appear fit to go to trial. 2 What is contended on behalf of the petitioner may be his defence to be appropriately examined in the trial itself. The application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)