IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5312 of 2011 Niru Devi & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2/ 29-09-2011 Supplementary affidavit filed has been taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. At an earlier occasion petitioners including Savita Kumari, Sonu Kumari, Babita Kumari, Ashilesh Singh have come up before this Court and challenged the order dated 29.06.2009 passed by ADJ, FTC-IV, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 87/2006 through which they were summoned to face trial invoking extraordinary power envisaged under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.2010 in the following terms:- “Considering the aforesaid fact, I direct the court below to reconsider the case of petitioner no.3 and 5 to 10 and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made above”. Unfortunately, the petitioners face same consequence vide order dated 3.12.2010 which happens to be under challenge. Learned APP opposed and submitted that section 319 of the Cr.P.C. gives an extraordinary power to the court to summon the accused who is found to be absent on 2 the record since before when his presence has been shown during the course of commission of an occurrence along with others who are already on the record. So far present scenario is concerned, the learned lower court rightly decided the matter after taking into account their complicity coming out through the mouth of PWs. The evidence whatever may be, already have been considered by the Hon’ble Court while directing the learned lower court for reappraisal vide Cr. Misc. No. 37055 of 2001 and then in that circumstance, the learned lower court should have accepted the direction mandating reappraisal kneeling in favour of petitioners because the spirit of the order shows like so. As such, the order impugned is set aside. Consequent thereupon the petition is allowed. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)