(1.) Rule. Mr. Manan Mehta learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1- State and Mr. Amirkhan Pathan learned advocate for Mr. A.M. Dagli learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2.
(2.) The petitioners herein have challenged an order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh. 92 in Sessions Case No. 48/2011. By such an order, the Sessions Court has, while allowing such application at Exh. 92 preferred by the prosecuting agency, directed to join present petitioners as an additional accused for committing the offence under sec. 411 of IPC, and to try them jointly with the original accused in such sessions case, who are facing the charge under section 302, 392 and 341 of IPC. The Sessions Court also directed to issue summons against both the accused.
(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances emerging from record and requisite discussions herein, it is quite clear and obvious that when original sessions case is pending trial before the Sessions Court, and when out of two petitioners, at least, petitioner no. 1 certainly needs to be tried with other accused for the offences referred to hereinabove, it would not be appropriate for this Court to discuss the factual details and to determine anything on merits, which would otherwise prejudice either side and trial. Therefore, without entering into the minute details regarding charges levelled against original accused as well as present petitioners, the fact remains that there is prima-facie evidence found against present petitioner no. 1 during the course of trial, against the original accused to confirm that there is some role of present petitioner no. 1, if not for offence for all the sections, more particularly, under section 302 IPC, but at least there is some prima-facie evidence against him which goes to show that probably he has either helped the original accused or he has committed some offences, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order.