law and facts in as much as the specific act of the petitioners have not been discussed nor the grounds taken by the petitioners have at all been adverted to by the learned Court below. It has further been submitted that the informant came to learn about the occurrence through the mouth of two of the witnesses viz. Jadunandan Rai and Dular Rai but the aforesaid two persons have not stated anything in their statements before the investigating agency. It has further been submitted that with respect to one of the accused persons, a Bench of this Court had directed him to appear before the Trial Court and raise all the grounds before charges could be framed against him. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused person viz. Bhola Rai approached the Trial Court and preferred an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court, after referring to the materials available, rejected such prayer and gave a date for framing of the charge. Against such an order of the Trial Court, aforesaid Bhola Rai came before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 20462 of 2011. The order of the Trial Court rejecting the prayer of discharge of aforesaid Bhola Rai was set aside vide order dated 17.11.2011 as contained in Annexure-5 to the petition and the case was remanded to the learned Trial Court for writing out a fresh order, in accordance with law.
