ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is by the informant to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court disposing of three petitions filed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and

( 3 ) BY the said petitions, the prayer for protection in terms of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') was accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while allowing the protection in terms of Section 438 of the Code the high Court has not kept in view the parameters indicated by this Court for granting such protection. Even otherwise, the high Court has pre-empted the framing of charges. It is also pointed out that the High Court has committed several errors on facts, for example it observed that the accused persons were not named in the first information report (in short the 'fir') though they were specifically named in the FIR.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that without any material to show that the accused persons were involved in any conspiracy to do away with the deceased, false implications have been made with mala fide intent. The deceased was involved in se