IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21495 of 2008 1) Naushad Mian, son of Khalil Mian @ Rabid Miyan, 2) Jhallu Mian @ Kallu Mian, son of Nezam Miyan, 3) Ghaffar Mian, son of Nirbajid Mian @ Minajid Mian, all of village and P.S. Sangrampur, district Munger – Petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 7.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 22.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC VI, Munger in S.C. No. 298/1994 whereby processes have been issued under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for consequential prosecution/retrial of the petitioners. In this case cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under sections 307, 323, 324 and 427 of the Penal Code on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet. It appears that thereafter the petitioners did not appear in the case and have now challenged the order, dated 22.3.2008 by which processes have been issued against them. The main ground is that no order was passed in the file after the order of cognizance and suddenly processes have been issued against them under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also submitted that other accused persons have been acquitted vide Sessions Case No. 298/1994. I find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are not quite correct. 2 It is evident that after taking cognizance of the offences, the petitioners ought to have been issued summons to appear in the case. The record discloses that on 2.10.2005, 5.11.2005 and thereafter right up to 5.5.2006 the petitioners remained absent and did not appear in the court. On 5.5.2006 the court has recorded that there is no service report with respect to service of notice on the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are avoiding the notice although the matter came on several dates before the court below and an application was filed for issuance of processes against them and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued on 20.11.2006. After the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, the petitioners again did not care to appear before the court below. In the circumstances this court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)