IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26012 of 2007 1. RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH @ RAMDEO AWADHIA, SON OF GOPAL AWADHIA. 2. UPENDRA KUMAR @ UPENDRA AWADHIA, SON OF RAMDEO AWADHIA. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHEM MATIHANIA, POLICE STATION-BISHAMBHARPUR, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. -------------- 3. 23.10.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioners is against the order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.418 of 2006, whereby he has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing the said order is that nothing specific has been alleged against the petitioners and they have not been shown armed with specific weapon. It has also been submitted that the petitioner no.1 being a teacher in a Government School at the relevant time was not present at the place of occurrence and that as had cropped up in the investigation and the supervision note it was actually one Dhanraj - 2 - Singh, a notorious criminal who was responsible for the overt acts. The submission that the petitioner not being present at the place of occurrence is his alibi and cannot be looked into at this stage. No defence as such has been raised by the petitioner no.2 and in those circumstances, it is presumed that he was very much present at the place of occurrence and had participated in the occurrence. It would also be clear from the fardbeyan of the victim which forms the very basis of Gopalganj P.S. Case No.331 of 2003 which has given rise to the instant Sessions Trial that both the petitioners had actively participated in the occurrence and had also resorted to firing. The law is now well settled on this point that where there is any suspicion the charges must be framed and at the stage of framing of charge and filing of a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the court is not required to evaluate and weigh evidence that is available in the case diary as if it was pronouncing final judgment after the trial. What the court is required to see is that whether there is slightest suspicion so as to proceed against the accused. The word which requires emphasis is to “proceed against” and not to see whether his case will end in conviction or otherwise. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this application which appears to be misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)