IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5570 of 2010 SAMPRIT MAHTO son of Sumar Mahto, resident of village-Lakhanpur, P.S.-Masarak, Dist.- Patna. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 17.2.2010. Heard Mr. M.K.Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is informant of the case, has challenged the order dated 14.7.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.627 of 2004 whereby Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Chapra, has rejected the petition filed by Public Prosecutor for summoning the doctor who had examined the injuries as well as investigating officer of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to annexure-2 at page 15 of the petition which is the attendance filed by the doctor, Surendra Prasad Singh. The attendance appears to have been filed on 23.6.2009. Learned counsel submitted that it is not a case where the doctor is not interested to depose in the case but to the reasons best known to the court below the doctor was not examined. Learned counsel also submitted that though the case was fixed by order dated 14.7.2009 for argument but till date the argument is inconclusive and the case is pending. It is surprising that though it is a case of 2004, the learned trial Judge in such a hasty manner without examining either investigating officer or the doctor has fixed the case for argument by the impugned order even though the public 2 prosecutor had made a specific prayer by way of filing a petition for summoning investigating officer as well as the doctor who had examined the injuries. It is apparent that in this case one of the offences alleged was attempt to commit murder and first information report shows the offences which were under sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 324, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in such a case, for the ends of justice, examination of doctor as well as investigation officer is very essential and as such the impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the attendance of the doctor as well as investigating officer. With the above observation and direction, this application is allowed. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)