IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.647 of 2009 1. MD. SHAKIR 2. MD. MAJO 3. MD. MANJOOR ALAM 4. MD. SHAH ALAM 5. MD. KHALID 6. MD. SHAMIM 7. MD. SUBHAN 8. MD. SANNO 9. KISMAT 10. BABLU 11. MD. TANVEER 12. NIZAMUDDIN 13. MD.KAIYUM 14. MD. NASIM 15. MD. JASIMUDDIN 16. SAHWAZ 17. MD.TANBIR ALAM 18. MD. SAKIL AHMAD 19. MD. RAJU 20. MD. MUNISH …PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. HASIM ALI …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Singh No.2 For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 2. 25.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are facing charges/accusations punishable under diverse sections of the Penal Code including sections 307/149 IPC. As per the allegation in the FIR, a group of accused persons including the petitioners committed the offence wherein the son of the informant was brutally assaulted causing grievous injuries on his head. Some other persons including the informant are also said to have received injuries. It is further the allegation that the said group of the accused(s) thereafter committed loot in the shop of the informant. Upon 2 taking cognizance of the case, the same was committed to the court of sessions whereafter an application was filed on 19.02.2009 under section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge which was considered and rejected by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that going by the allegation contained in the FIR, no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioners who are twenty in number. The allegation of assault on the son of the informant who sustained grievous head injuries is against some other persons (not the petitioner). It is thus submitted that for these allegations, the petitioners cannot be hauled up and tried for an offence punishable under section 307/147 IPC besides other allied sections. Learned court below, on a consideration of materials on record including the injury report, the case diary, has found that there is/are adequate materials on record indicating common object of the mob. Law is fairly settled on this point. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to peruse the materials on record and satisfy itself about the presence of sufficient materials. The submission that no specific role has been assigned to these petitioners would not be relevant consideration at this stage. Counsel for the petitioners fairly stated before this Court that pursuant to the order impugned charges have already been framed and the petitioners herein are now facing the trial. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not satisfied that a case for interference is made out. This Court, however, clarifies that any observation made in the present order shall not, in any manner, prejudice the case of the petitioners at the trial. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )