ORDER I.A. No. 1781 of 2013. By the Court. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State on an I.A. bearing No. 1781 of 2013. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this application had been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance, but while the matter was pending before this Court, an order was passed on an application filed by the petitioner, whereby the Court below refused to discharge the petitioners from the accusation vide its order dated 08.02.2013 which has also been challenged by way of this interlocutory application and, therefore, the petitioners be permitted to incorporate the said prayer in the main application. 3. The prayer made in the Interlocutory application is hereby, allowed. 4. Let I.A. form part of the main application. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1781 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of. Cr. M.P. No. 2760 of 2012. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the-Slate. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when iron-sheets were found lying in front of the godown of the petitioners, it was suspected to be the stolen and, therefore, a case was registered as B.S. City P.S. Case No. 242 of 2012 [G.R. No. 1003 of 2012] under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated upon and on completion of the investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 379 and 414, IPC. Thereupon cognizance of the offences was taken against the petitioners. Subsequently an application for discharge was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 08.02.2013 which is under challenge. 8. Learned counsel further submits that while the matter was under investigation, the petitioners moved for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Judge Bokaro, wherein claim was made that the petitioners had purchased those iron-sheets validly from SAIL. On such plea being taken, the matter was asked to be enquired into. After enquiry, a report was submitted that the petitioners had purchased those iron-sheets from SAIL under valid documents and in fact, the I.O. has also found that the petitioners had purchased those iron-sheets from the SAIL validly. In spite of that petition filed for discharge was rejected which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be quite illegal. 9. In spite of that petition filed for discharge was rejected which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be quite illegal. 9. I laving heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that prayer for discharge has been rejected, after holding that the documents upon which the petitioners have been placing reliance cannot be looked into, but while holding so, the Court failed to take notice of the fact as recorded under Para-59 of the case diary that the petitioners had purchased those iron-sheets from the SAIL. 10. Under the circumstances, the order dated 08.02.2013 is hereby set aside and the petitioners are discharged from the accusation. 11. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.