IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4134 of 2009 MD. SAFIQUE, S/o Md. Habib, Resident of Murgichak, P.S.-Tajpur (Bungra), Distt.-Samastipur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Gulam Mustafa, S/o Md. Idrish. 3. Firdaus Alam, S/o Gulam Mustafa. 4. Aftab Alam, S/o Gulam Mustafa. 5. Md. Naunihal, S/o Gulam Mustafa. 6. Md. Phoolo, S/o Md. Mobinuddin. 7. Md. Chand, S/o Md. Mobinuddin. 8. Md. Nanhe, S/o Md. Mobinuddin. 9. Md. Salim, S/o Md. Hussain. 10. Md. Tamanee, S/o Md. Taslim. 11. Sarvar Ali, S/o Md. Taslim. 12. Md. Kalam, S/o Md. Idrish. All Sl Nos. 2 to 12 are resident of village-Murgiachak, P.S.-Tajpur (Bangra) District-Samastipur. 13. Md. Karamat, S/o Abdul Gafoor of Village-Harishankarpur Baghauni, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.-Samastipur. 14. Md. Nazir, S/o Md. Hasim of village-Harishankarpur Baghauni, P.S.-Tajpur, P.S.-Tajpur, Distt.-Samastipur. ----------- 02. 04.08.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2008 by which the Additional Sessions Judge- cum-F.T.C.-IV, Samastipur in connection with S.Tr. No. 369 of 2005 arising out of Tajpur (Bangra) P.S. Case No. 300 of 2001 has refused the prayer of the petitioner to summon the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 14 to face the trial. Initially, Opposite Parties No. 2 to 14 were named in the First Information Report but charge- sheet was submitted only against eight accused persons. During trial, after examination of four 2 witnesses an application under Section 319 was filed for summoning the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 14. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even though there was sufficient material appearing against the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 14 the court below has passed the impugned order totally mechanically. It has further been submitted that the accused were named by four witnesses as being members of the unlawful assembly who committed assault after entering in the house of the informant. However, in my view, Section 319 has to be applied in very rare cases and not as a matter of routine. Considering that the Trial Court was in seisin of the counter-case as well and therefore was fully equipped to find out the desirability of putting the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 14 on trial, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter. In view of such, this application is dismissed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)