JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge C.B.I.-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 333 of 2016, arising out of R.C. Case No. 4(S) of 2006(D)/5(S) of 2006(D), whereby and where under the discharge application preferred by the petitioner had been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that with respect to custodial death investigation was handed to the C.B.I. which led to submission of charge sheet against three accused persons but the petitioner was not charge-sheeted. Subsequently a protest petition was filed by the informant to which the C.B.I. had filed its reply in which also the petitioners name did not figure. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that however the learned S.D.J.M., after perusal of the materials available on record had taken cognizance and had also summoned the petitioner to face trial. It has also been submitted that an application for discharge was preferred by the petitioner which however was rejected on 20.06.2017 without assigning any reason or without stating as to what are the materials which have been collected against the petitioner in course of investigation which would justify the prosecution of the petitioner. 4. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that the C.B.I. had submitted charge sheet against Jeetan Ram, Pappu Kumar Khatiq and Ganga Paswan @ Yadunandan Paswan. Since the petitioner was not sent up for trial a protest petition was filed by the informant which was duly replied to by the C.B.I. in which also the name of the petitioner did not figure. However the learned S.D.J.M vide order dated 09.02.2009 had taken cognizance and had summoned the petitioner along with the named accused persons to face trial. The petitioner preferred an application before the learned trial court which was dismissed on 20.06.2017. 6. However the learned S.D.J.M vide order dated 09.02.2009 had taken cognizance and had summoned the petitioner along with the named accused persons to face trial. The petitioner preferred an application before the learned trial court which was dismissed on 20.06.2017. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 reveals that the submission of the respective counsels have been noted and the allegations have also been noted but there has been no whisper in the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 which would lead to a conclusion that the learned trial court had applied its mind or had found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. The impugned order therefore sans any justifiable and cogent reasons as no materials have been discussed which have been collected by the Investigating Agency or which would show that the petitioner deserves to be prosecuted in the criminal case, the said order is not in accordance with law. 7. In absence of any appropriate and just reason the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge C.B.I.-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 333 of 2016, arising out of R.C. Case No. 4(S) of 2006(D)/5(S) of 2006(D), is hereby, quashed and set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties expeditiously and preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application stands allowed.