IMPORTANT POINT
When a process is issued after impleading a person as an accused along with others already facing trial the purpose is to secure their appearance before the Court and they should be present during trial, on all dates of hearing thereafter.

JUDGMENT

Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.—Passing of the order dated 31.7.2009 has led the petitioners to file this misc. petition (952/09) in revision petition No.839/09. By the order impugned, the learned trial court had dismissed the application for bail filed by the petitioners in Sessions Case No. 136/04 wherein cognizance was taken against both the petitioners in exercise of the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and process, by way of non-bailable warrants, was issued on 14.5.2009. This court vide order dated 20.7.2009 had disposed of the revision petition (839/09), wherein the order dated 14.5.2009 was under challenge, with the directions that the petitioners shall appear on or before 3.8.2009 and in failing to do so the warrant of arrest passed by the learned trial court for the purpose of securing their presence shall be revived.

2. The relevant facts for considering the present controversy are that a report (515/02) was lodged on 7.9.2002, on the parcha bayan of the injured Smt. Kalawati @ Kallo, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan against Kalyan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 34 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions and charges were framed against Kalyan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh for the offences under Sections 323, 323/34, 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 and 341 IPC. The said accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. On commencement of trial, the prosecution produced Kalawati @ Kallo PW1 and Ramkesh PW2. Thereupon the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed on 14.5.09. On having taken cognizance against the petitioners Charan Singh and Gopal Singh, the learned trial court issued process against them, by way of non-bailable warrants. The said order passed by the learned trial court was the matter of challenge in the revision petition (839/09) and the same was disposed of with the directions aforementioned. In compliance of the order dated 20.7.2009 both the persons namely Charan Singh and Gopal Singh appeared before the trial court on 31.7.2009. Thereafter an application for bail was moved by the accused/petitioners but the same came to be dismissed by the order impugned dated 31.7.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that cognizance was taken against the present petitioners on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 14.5.09 and they were summoned by non-bailable warrants. Further, he has submitted that the purpose of issuing process on an application while allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was to secure presence of the persons who were impleaded as accused in this case, along with other persons. Therefore, he has submitted that after the directions issued by this court and on the appearance of the accused persons before the learned trial court, there was no just reason for the learned trial court to have dismissed the application for bail, particularly when the other two persons namely Kalyan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh are on bail in this very case. He has also submitted that while passing of the impugned order dated 31.7.2009, the learned trial court has not correctly considered the purpose and object with which the order dated 20.7.2009 was passed by this court in a matter where cognizance had been taken against some other persons at the stage of 319 Cr.P.C. and as such it is non-compliance of the said order.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. They have submitted that in the first information report, in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of trial, allegations have been levelled a