IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1991 of 2008 BALDEO MAHTO, SON OF SRI GANESHI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KETHARIA, P.O. PAKTOLA, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI………………………………………..………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………...…..OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ------------ 3. 12.12.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is not named in the F.I.R. and was not sent up in the chargesheet is aggrieved by order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.259 of 1995 whereby he has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial alongwith those already undergoing the trial. It appears from the impugned order that three of the witnesses examined at the Sessions Trial have specifically named this petitioner as being a participant who had made attempts to kill the informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has sought to place reliance in the decision of Kailash Vs. State of Rajsthan reported in 2008(4) PLJR 246(SC) where their Lordships observed that for summoning additional person to face trial - 2 - it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. The key word emphasized by their Lordship appears to be “it appears from the evidence”. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that nothing had come in the evidence of the witnesses examined at the trial to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and, therefore, in view of the Judgment in Kailash’s Case (Supra) the order summoning the petitioner to face trial ought to be quashed. As stated above, it is clear from the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 that P.W.1, Sukdeo Thakur, P.W.2, Satyendra Thakur and P.W.3, Rajdeo Thakur, have specifically stated about the involvement of this petitioner in the crime inasmuch as they had made a conscious attempt to kill the informant. This, to my mind, is sufficient evidence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified to summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)