. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44509 of 2009 1. TARKESHWAR SINGH S/O SHRI RAM BAHADUR SINGH R/O VILL CHARIHARA, P.O.&P.S.MASHRAKH,DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA – petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BABU LAL GUPTA S/O SHRI RAJA RAM GUPTA R/O VILL TULKI PANAPUR BAZAR, P.S.PANAPUR,DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA – opp. parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Chitaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam and Mrs. Anamika Dubey, Advocates. For the S t a t e : Mr. D. K. Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor. For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate. 2 23.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 7.11.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S. T. No. 588/2009 by which the petition for discharge has been rejected. During investigation of the case final form was initially submitted against the petitioner but later he was charge sheeted and sent up for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two sets of evidence in the case diary. One set of evidence indicates that the petitioner was present at the time of the occurrence and the second set of evidence is that some of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not present at the place of the occurrence or in the village where the occurrence had taken place and on the basis of the later set of evidence the Investigating Officer had submitted final form. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the court ought to have considered the evidence which has come in his favour indicating that he was not present at the time of occurrence. 2 In my opinion, this aspect of the matter is a question which can be raised at the time of the trial and the petitioner would be entitled either by way of leading evidence, cross examination or drawing the attention of the witnesses to this aspect of the matter. At this stage the court has to see whether prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner which the court has done. In the light of the aforesaid facts I find no illegality or anomaly in the impugned order. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)