Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 21.08.2017 by which her application for discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C has been dismissed.
(2.) The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case only on suspicion; merely because she is daughter of the accused-Zakir Hussain who has allegedly threatened son of the informant.
(3.) At this stage itself it needs to be recorded that at the stage of framing of charge it is only suspicion; may be strong suspicion which if found on the basis of the materials collected during investigation is sufficient to frame charge against the accused. The trial judge in the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 has recorded that not only the petitioner is named in the First Information Report other co-accused persons namely, Sushil Ram, Vicky Kumar, Md. Ashad and Md. Asif Hussain have in their confessional statements disclosed the petitioner's complicity in the crime. The informant who happens to be the mother of the victim has again named the petitioner as an accused in her further statement. At this stage, in my opinion, sufficient material has been brought on record for framing charge against the petitioner.;