IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.30935 OF 2009 BIKRAM YADAV, SON OF PATU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATIMI, POLICE STATION NAWA NAGAR, DISTRICT BUXAR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ******* 2 11/05/2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there were two accused persons, namely, Kishan and Kamala. Kishan faced the trial vide Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2003. During the trial, none of the witnesses had named the petitioner in the case. Learned Counsel further submits that the name of the petitioner has come at the belated stage and since his name was not disclosed during the earlier trial, it is apparent that the disclosure and the role assigned to the petitioner at this stage is malafide and cannot be sustained. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is a categorical statement made by the Court below that PW 1 has stated that this petitioner i.e. Vikram Yadav had fired on Vijay Kumar Mishra. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at paragraph 5 of the deposition of PW 1, it is stated that “MAINE GOLI MARTE HUA KISI KO NAHIN DEKHA THA” and therefore, submits that there is contradictory evidence and there is 2 very little chance that the petitioner can be convicted on the basis of the evidence of PW 1. It is very difficult for this Court or for that matter the Court below to summon Vikram Yadav on the basis of the single evidence of PW 1. In the result, the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2004 is hereby quashed and the Court below is directed to consider the applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the eye-witness of this case have been examined. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)