JUDGMENT 1. -This petition under section 482 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated August 27, 1997 whereby the cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nohar in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.PC. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as per prosecution evidence, no active role has been assigned to the petitioner and as such learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Learned counsel further contends that evidence which has been collected by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to frame a charge against the petitioner. 3. The trial court has not yet applied its mind as to whether charge/charges should be framed against the petitioner or not. He has only taken a cognizance on the basis of evidence which has been recorded before it. At the stage of framing charge, the petitioner shall be in a better position to satisfy the concerned court that there is no evidence on record to frame the charge against her. The jurisdiction of the trial court in the matter of appreciation of evidence at that stage is larger than that of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. In the facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of in the following terms- (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Nohar on or before 3rd October, 1997. If she does so. she shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5.000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the said Court. The said Court shall also be free to impose any further condition of bail. Till 3rd October, 1997, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of impugned order dated 27.8.97. (ii) The petitioner shall be free to take all submissions and objections at the stage of framing charge. If any charge is framed against the petitioner, she shall be free to challenge the same in accordance with law. > Petition disposed of as indicated above. *******