Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.
(2.) In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVII cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in R.C. 20(A)/2009-R whereby and wherein charges have been framed against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) of the I.P.C. read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court had acted in haste while framing charge against the petitioners and ignoring the discharge application preferred on behalf of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel submits that the order-sheet would reveal that the case was pending for hearing on the application preferred by co-accused Arun Kumar Singh for supply of deficit police papers under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., but without there being any prior indication, charge has abruptly been framed on 05.04.2018 by the learned trial court to which the petitioners are aggrieved. Learned senior counsel also submits that acting on a premonition, a discharge application was preferred by the petitioners which however was ordered to be kept on record and the same was virtually made redundant on account of the charge having been framed on 05.04.2018 itself by stifling the plea of the petitioners with respect to discharging them from the prosecution case as the petitioners claim that the CBI has failed to collect materials which would indicate the presence of any criminality on the part of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel also adds that while framing charge, the sufficiency of evidence has not been properly evaluated by the learned trial court and in a routine manner charge has been framed against the petitioners and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by giving a opportunity to the petitioners to consider his plea with respect to his discharge application preferred by him.;