IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53391 of 2006 ANANDI DAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6. 5-Feb-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments of this Court including one reported in 2008(1) PLJR 734 to submit that an order under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. refusing prayer of the accused for discharge must show due application of mind and should not be passed in mechanical manner. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. At the stage of framing of charge and while considering a prayer for discharge, the Court is bound to apply its mind but when it decides to discharge the accused then as per provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, he must indicate reasons. Law does not require cataloging the materials against the accused at the time when the Court decides to frame charges. On going through the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC- Banka, it is apparent that the order rejecting prayer for discharge was passed after due application of mind to the materials 2 available on record. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)