1. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of non-discharge dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, II, Nawada, in Pakari Barawan P.S. Case No.94 of 2011 (Sessions Trial No.120 of 2014/49 of 2014).

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the Informant was proceeding towards Lakhiserai in his car along with others they were forcibly stopped on account of an obstruction. When the car slowed number of miscreants appeared with arms and looted them as also others who had stopped on account of the obstruction.

3. The Petitioner is not named in the First Information Report. His name transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused and himself before the police. Submission is that since confessional statement before the police is not admissible in law he should be discharged. This Court had dismissed the application on 10.11.2014 but felt the necessity of examining this point in some detail because such an argument is often advanced and Courts require some discussion on it.

4. Before I proceed, I would like to cite some leading decisions on the point of materials required to frame charge/discharge. These decisions are relevant to the ext