IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21061 of 2007 VIKASH JHA @ VIKASH KUMAR JHA, son of Sri. Sureshwar Jha, resident of Village-Agarwa Nagar, Motihari, P.S.-Town Motihari, District- East Champaran(Motihari). ……..Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Binda Singh @ Binda Prasad, son of Janardan Prasad Singh, resident of village-Patahi, Police Station-Patahi, District-Motihari. …….Opposite Parties. ----------- 05. 15.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State. The present application has been filed by the informant of Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 246 of 2005 which was registered under Sections -302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The reason for the present application is that vide order dated 26.12.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Motihari, East Champaran has been pleased to discharge Opposite Party No. 2 in the case. The said order, therefore, is under challenge in the present application. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that O.P. No. 2 was named in the F.I.R., investigation was made, charge-sheet came to be filed and there is material to show that he is part and parcel of the crime and therefore he ought to have been also proceeded against but the Court below has exonerated him by not 2 framing charge erroneously if not illegally. He submits that there are indications in the case diary that the Opposite Party No. 2 used to do Pairvi from the so called ill gotten money earned by his son who was running a Rangdari business and he used to do Pairvi on his behalf. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the diary of the case was called by the Court to examine material against him. A bare perusal of the same would show that there are only inference or suspicion that Opposite Party No. 2 was part and parcel of the Rangdari Business being run by his son, that by itself may not be enough to prosecute the petitioner in the present case. Learned A.P.P. has gone through the case diary and he also certifies that in the investigation there is some suspicion expressed about the Opposite Party No. 2 but there is no clinching evidence to pin him down straight away. Though he does not deny that he used to do Pairvi of the case of his son but then that could be for more than one reason for which only suspicion has been expressed. Keeping the above said position, this Court is not inclined interfere with the order of the discharge passed in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Court, however, categorically records that in case during trial, evidence and material come with regard to the role and involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question, the Court will have 3 freedom to exercise power under Section-319 of the Cr. P.C. The application is dismissed with the above direction in this regard. Let the case diary be returned to the Court below. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)