IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18989 of 2010 1. DAYA SHANKAR SINGH @ UDAY SHANKAR SINGH 2. UMA SHANKAR SINGH ALIAS RAVI SHANKAR SINGH 3. JATA SHANKAR SINGH, ALL SONS OF RAMESHWAR SINGH 4. BALIRAM SINGH SON OF LATE MATHURA SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MANGALPUR, P.S. RAMGARHWA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN 5. BINOD SINGH SON OF RAM CHANDRA SINGH 6. BRAJESH SINGH SON OF HIMANCHAL SINGH 7. SHRINATH SINGH SON OF LATE MAMILDAR SINGH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PARSAUNA, ALL OF POLICE STATION RAM GARHWA DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADAN SINGH SON OF LATE BAIDYANATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE BHATIYA, POLICE STATION RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ….. OPP. PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the State : Smt. Pushpa Sinha,A.P.P. ---------- 3. 1.3.2011 The petitioners are aggrieved with the orders dated 11.3.2010 and 19.4.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast track Court No.5, Motihari in Sessions Trial No.46 of 2006, by which he has refused an application filed u/s.228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that initially the case was instituted u/s.307 I.P.C. in which two persons were arrested and they were committed for trial vide S.T.No.232 of 1999. Before the trial court an application u/s.228 Cr.P.C. was filed by those accused, which was allowed by the court concerned and the case was remitted before the Magistrate bearing Trial No.196 of 2007. Subsequently three additional accused were - 2 - arrested and once again surprisingly they were committed to the court of Sessions vide Sessions Trial No.445 of 1999. Before the trial court those accused also filed an application u/s.228 Cr.P.C. which was refused by the trial court. Then those accused moved this Court and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate in view of Section 223 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were then charge sheeted and even they were committed to the court of Sessions vide S.T.No.46 of 2006, where they also filed an application u/s.228 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the trial court and now they have come before this Court. I have not been able to understand as to how in the same case different sets of accused are being committed to the court of Sessions even though at one point in time the case was remitted to the Magistrate, and, when there could only be composite trial, the part bifurcation of the accused persons and their commitment does not appear credible or in accordance with law. In view of such, the District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari is directed to look into the records of the case and if he finds that the case being a composite whole should be tried before one court which should not be repeatedly bifurcated impeding the progress in trial, pass an appropriate order that all the trials be amalgamated or at least be held in the same - 3 - court. With these observations, the application is disposed of. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )