IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52713 of 2006 6 29.1.2010 Md. Deen alias Mintu son of Late Md. Amin, resident of Mohalla- Kotwali Chowk, P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga ....... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Bihar ....... Opposite Party ------- For the Petitioner : Mr Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the State : Dr. M.N.Jha, APP -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been charge sheeted by the police in Bisfi PS Case No.30/90 dated 27.2.1990 under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and on that basis learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhubani decided to frame charges against him and rejected petitioner’s prayer for discharge by order dated 5.9.2005. Against that order, petitioner preferred Cr.Revision No.1378 of 2005 which has been dismissed by Sessions Judge, Madhubani by impugned order dated 31.10.2006. Through this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders rejecting his prayer for discharge on 2 the ground that he is not named in the FIR and even during investigation, no witness has implicated him in the offence. It is further submitted that only material noticed against the petitioner in the revisional order are paragraphs 125 and 167 of the case diary which do not raise even a strong suspicion against the petitioner’s involvement in the offence. Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and has also submitted on that basis that paragraph 125 contains a injury report of the petitioner dated 11.5.1990 in which some of the injuries possibly by bomb, were found to be one year old. The date of occurrence of this case is 26.2.1990. In paragraph 167 of the case diary, the police has referred to statement of some persons only to the effect that there had been occurrence of bomb explosion in the village of occurrence on the relevant date. In that paragraph also, no witness has named this petitioner. In view of aforesaid facts, particularly from paragraphs 125 and 167 of the case diary, it is found that there is absolute dearth of any material to raise even a 3 strong suspicion against the petitioner that he might have been involved in the offence in question. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to allow this application, quash the impugned orders passed by 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No.158/2002 as well as the revisional order and direct the trial court to discharge the petitioner from the trial in question. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk