ORDER 1. Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence even for the namesake on the basis of which the petitioner can be forced to face the rigor of trial as it is imperative upon the trial court to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offence are present or not or whether the same have any direct or indirect nexus with the petitioner. It is strenuously urged that neither there are allegations of making demand of illegal gratification nor there is any charge of receiving bribe. There is not even a conversation in between the complainant and the petitioner. It is vehemently and fervently urged that there is no one who will come to the witness box in the trial to substantiate the charge and as such the trial against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case pertaining to anti corruption, however, he, too, does not dispute that no transcript of conversation between the petitioner and the complainant is available on record and nothing incriminating has been recovered from him. 3. Heard and gone through the entire charge sheet, the conversation and the other material available on record. 4. The charges are proposed to be framed on the relevant material available on record and it is not to be seen that whether the material available on record would be sufficient to bring home the guilt or not as well as probative value of defence is not required to be seen. What is required to be pondered upon would be the application of mind to see the sufficiency of material available on record so as to put the accused to face rigour of trial. The stage of framing the charge is a very significant step in a criminal case and it has to be framed in accordance with the statutory terms stipulated in sections 226, 227 & 228 of Cr.P.C. Before framing a charge, the judge is required to hear the contentions proffered by both the parties as well as is required to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith. It is mandate of law that after consideration of the submissions and the material available on record, if the Judge forms an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then the judge shall frame the charge. 5. Needless to say that it is not expected from the court to form an opinion regarding the guilt of the accused at this stage and meticulous appreciation of evidence is not required yet certain amount of consideration i.e. legitimate reasons are needed to be assigned before compelling an individual to face the trial. This court puts this under consideration that whether the ingredients required to compose commission of an offence are adequately present or not. In the case of Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr Reported in 1979 (3) SCC4, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has propounded that where the material placed before the court discloses a grave suspicion against accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge. There is a fine distinction between suspicion and grave suspicion as the connotation of both are widely different. The demand of grave suspicion would be availability of some incriminating material. In the light of the legal proposition enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court through plethora of judicial pronouncements as well as considering the submission. 6. Issue notice to respondent no.2 only, returnable by four weeks. 7. Till then, further proceedings in Sessions Case No.82/2021 pending in the court of Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No.4, Jaipur titled as State of Raj. Vs. Ram Kumar Kasaniya & Anr. shall remain stayed.