IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2894 of 2011 AMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 6.4.2011 Heard Shri Farooque Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner who seeks quashing of order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2008 by which the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being put on trial with other accused persons. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit by which he has placed on records the copies of depositions of P.Ws. 1 and 2. namely, Dina Nath Yadav and Bijali Devi. The case is under Section 302,etc. of the Indian Penal Code and in spite of being named in the F.I.R. as one of the accused, the petitioner was not sent up by the police after close of investigation. The trial proceeded as against the other accused and the learned trial Judge examined P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of the two witnesses has been discussed by the trial court in substantial details as may appear from the last page of the order, i.e., the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 and it has been held that evidence was there in respect of the participation of the present petitioner in the commission of murder of three persons, namely, Rajharan Yadav, Dhrub Singh and Sukhdeo Yadav. I have perused the evidence of the two witnesses. 2 It is specifically stated by them that this petitioner was also armed with a rifle and captured the deceased persons and the injured, specially, P.W. 1 and took them to a particular place where all the accused concertedly assaulted them as a result of which above noted three persons died. On placing reliance upon Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. reported in 2008(4) P.L.J.R. 246(S.C.) it was contended that the evidence could be of such quality as must justify the words ‘it appears that such accused has committed the crime.’ It was further contended that above part of the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. indicates that it should not be mere naming of an accused to summon him but it should be something more which could indicate his participation so that there could be a chance of his conviction. The observation of the Supreme Court in another decision reported in (2009) 3 S.C.C. 329 Brindaban Das and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal has also been referred to in support of the contention. I have in a couple of decisions myself held that part of Section 319 which reads ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ means that merely naming someone as one of the accused or a person in the group of persons may not be sufficient compliance of the provision of Section 319 Cr. P.C. unless the evidence disclosed that such accused has committed certain acts or series of acts which constituted an offence who is 3 likely to be summoned under Section 319 Cr. P.C. Thus, I personally hold the view which has been held by the Apex Court in the above two decisions and I do not have any escape from that legal position that that mere naming of a person as an accused or in a group of accused without assigning any specific role towards commission of an act or serious of acts which may ultimately constitute an offence who could ultimately be tried, could not be sufficient to summon a person. After having perused the evidence of two witnesses, copies whereof have been made available to the court during the course of hearing by filing a supplementary affidavit, what appears is that specific roles have been assigned against the accused persons including the present petitioner and in that light summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr. P.C cold not be said to be bad. The petition appears of no merit and the same is dismissed . Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)