IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14710 of 2006 RANJIT KUMAR RAI @ RANJIT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 16/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 13.12.2005 in Barauni (Garahara) P.S. Case No.92/03/Trial No.600/03 under Sections- 307 and 324/34 of I.P.C. pending before Sri A.K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. During investigation his name has transpired on the alleged statement of the victim and a witness. Even such statements allege that the petitioner and his accomplices left the victim when the victim was allegedly attacked by certain other persons. He, therefore, submits that there was no justification for the court to take cognizance differing with the final report submitted by the police not sending him for trial. The F.I.R. names certain other persons who were accompanied by unnamed. The name of the petitioner has transpired during investigation. The distinction sought to be drawn between the two parts of 2 the F.I.R. by learned counsel for the petitioner does not impress the Court. The allegations are in continuity. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not against individuals. In any event, as per the F.I.R. and the investigation the petitioner allegedly caught hold of the victim along with Bambam and others. No sooner Bambam, the petitioner and others released the victim, certain other persons came from the house of Bambam and assaulted the victim with firearms. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of cognizance requiring interference by this Court at this stage. The application is rejected. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)