IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1380 of 2008 SHAMSHER KHAN @ TUNTUN ANSARI @ TUNTUN ANSARI, SON OF FARUK ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAHADIA, P.S.- KATORIA, DISTRICT- BANKA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pd. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 29.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. The vehicle of the informant was intercepted, bombs were hurled and the body guard was injured and thereafter the miscreants looted mobile, pistol and cash. In the occurrence, one of the persons succumbed to death. Charge- sheet was submitted which gave rise to the order taking cognizance and subsequently the matter was committed to the Court of Session whereafter an application on behalf of the present petitioner was filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. Learned court below considered the said application and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1241 of 2007. While questioning the legality of the order, it is submitted that the petitioner had made a claim of alibi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been dragged in the present case by adding an alias name. There is no legal material on record justifying framing of charge. It is the submission of learned 2 counsel for the petitioner that learned trial court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and allowed the application filed on his behalf seeking discharge. It is stated that the petitioner has no alias name and that he is not even resident of village Bardiha as cited in the charge-sheet. On the contrary, learned APP submits that the materials placed along with police papers were perused by the learned Magistrate. The view taken by the learned trial court in rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be perverse. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned trial court found that there is evidence on record which is/are sufficient to proceed with the trial. With regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned trial court has observed as under: “The main question for determination is whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding or not? The plea of the accused Shamsher regarding alibi cannot be considered and accepted into at the stage of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., unless it is tested on evidence at the trial, whereas the ground taken by the other set of lawyer regarding prima-facie material to proceed to be considered when the matter will be rip. It is very early to nip the bud at the stage of discharge. The evidence collected during investigation shows the hand of the accused in the alleged crime. State of Bihar versus Ramesh Singh A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2018 in which Hon’ble Court held that charge can be framed on mere suspicion. At the stage of charge meticulous consideration of evidence is not required.” 3 This court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting interference. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )