IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.35139 of 2008 ***** Shiv Shanker Singh, S/o Late Ram Dayal Singh, R/o Village-Bhashepur, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist- Sitamarhi. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ramakant Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o village Mahmadha, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist-Sitamarhi. 3. Anand Kumar Singh S/o Deo Narayan Singh, R/o village Bhashepur, P.S. Bajpatti, Dist- Sitamarhi. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the opposite party no.2 : Ms. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dasrath Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 6.5.2009. In the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Shiv Shanker Singh, he wants the order dated 11.6.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.866 of 2005 to be set aside since the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-3, Sitamarhi has rejected the petition of the petitioner dated 13.3.20908 to merge the trial of the sessions case with that of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 147/04 since the same arise out of similar set of facts and background. The Court need not record all the aspects and the background in detail of the litigation in question since the same has already been taken note of in Cr. Misc. No. 36335 of 2008, which is the case of Anand Kumar Singh @ Kali Singh v. State of Bihar, in which a detailed order has come to be recorded. In so far as the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for merging the two trials as they arise out of the same - 2 - event or case is concerned, the trial Court has rightly recorded and assigned the reasons therein for not entertaining the same. Not only this since the order summoning the accused in Complaint Case No.C1-371/05 has been interfered with by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 36335 of 2008, there are no two cases to be tried at this stage and, therefore, no illegality can be found in the impugned order dated 11.6.2008. It is further recorded that the trial Court has in so many words had explained the situation for rejecting the application dated 13.3.2008 and there is no infirmity legal or otherwise which requires interference. The application stands dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)