P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) By the instant revision petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 10th of May 2017, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, accepted application of the respondent-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and issued bailable warrants against petitioners, as accused persons, for being tried together with other charge-sheeted accused persons.
(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant lodged FIR with Police Station, Ganganagar against 14 named accused besides 10-15 other persons attributing serious offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 395 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the FIR, the petitioners were also specifically named by the complainant for attacking him well armed with lathis and hockeysticks etc. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against 8 persons viz., Jitender Singh alias Rinkle, Jasmeet Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gurjinder Singh alias Pisti, Gurpinder Singh, Lucky Jangid and Gurcharan Singh while dropping all the petitioners.
(3.) Learned trial Court took cognizance against accused persons named in the charge-sheet, and thereafter, framed charges, and upon denial, they were put on trial. During trial, statements of complainant PW1 Sukhwinder Singh were recorded and the examination-in-chief of PW2 Virendra Singh took place. At this stage, the complainant submitted an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with positive assertion that all the petitioners are not only named in the FIR but from the evidence of complainant also their involvement in commission of offence is borne out, and therefore, all of them may be summoned for being tried as accused with other accused persons facing trial. The application is contested by the accused persons facing trial and in reply to the application it is averred on their behalf that during investigation no incriminating evidence is found against them and even from the statements of PW1 and PW2 no plausible ground is made out for taking cognizance against them.;