SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this revision the petitioner complainant has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 16.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 122/2012 whereby, the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 to summon Hemraj and Modaram as additional accused was rejected.
(2.) Having appreciated the arguments advanced by Shri Vikas Bijarnia representing the petitioner complainant, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Pradeep Choudhary learned counsel representing the accused Hemraj and Modaram and after going through the material available on record, it is apparent that right from the FIR to the investigational statement and in the sworn testimony, the material witnesses have named the respondents as assailants along with charge-sheeted accused Ramdayal. The injured suffered large number of injuries in the incident. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the learned trial Court to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 The evidence available on record gives rise to due satisfaction regarding complicity of the respondents in the incident.
(3.) Resultantly, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to summon respondents Hemraj and Modaram as additional accused to face trial with the charge-sheeted accused Ramdayal. The respondents Hemraj and Modaram are given liberty to surrender before the trial Court on or before 11.12.2017 and move a regular bail application upon which they shall be enlarged on bail on appropriate terms and conditions. In the event they fail to comply with the above direction, the trial Court shall summon them through warrant of arrest. Stay petition also stands disposed of. Revision allowed.;