IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15842 of 2010 1. MD. ISLAM SON OF SHEIKH ABDUL BAHID 2. MD. SHAHNAWAZ ALAM SON OF MD. ISLAM 3. MD. CHAND ALAM SON OF MD. ISLAM 4. MD. KUNMA @ MD. KALEEM SON OF SHAMSHER MISTRY 5. MD. MODASSAR SON OF MD. NASEEMUDDIN 6. MD. OZAIR SON OF MD. NASEEMUDDIN 7. MD. ISHTEKHAR SON OF SHAMSHER MISHTRY 8. MD. NASEEM UDDIN SON OF SHEIKH BAJUK HAQUE 9. MD. AFSAR SON OF SHAMSHER MISTRY 10. MD. WALI SON OF MD. BELAL 11. MD. JAKKY SON OF MD. IRTAZ 12. MD. ALI SON OF MD. ISLAM 13. MD. ADIL SON OF MD. NAYEEMUDDIN 14. MD. LAL @ SHAMSH TAWREJ SON OF MD. SILAM, ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE KHIRI BAND, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR …. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAJAMUDDIN SON OF LATE SK. MOJID, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHIRIOLARN, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR …. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 2. 3.1.2011 The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Bhagalpur in S.T. No.259A of 2007, by which charges have been framed u/s.307/149 I.P.C. and other allied Sections. It has been submitted that even though the petitioners were named in the first information report, a final report was submitted in the matter, which was accepted by the court below, whereafter during trial they were summoned. When they were summoned the petitioners moved this Court, but in the mean while since the charges were framed the application was allowed to be withdrawn with an observation that all the said points could be urged 2 before the trial court. Now the petitioners submit that in fact since they cannot be said to be members of an unlawful assembly in the facts of the case they should not be tried as also that the prosecution will not suffer if they are not charged. It is a undisputed position that the petitioners were named by some witnesses during investigation and, therefore, there was enough justification for summoning them u/s.319 Cr.P.C. The further submission that the prosecution would not suffer even if the petitioners are not summoned does not hold good since if the major portion of the prosecution case is rejected at this stage itself the case of the prosecution will be dealt a severe blow. In view of such, I find no merit in the application. The same is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )