ASIT KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against the order dated 25. 5. 85 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Second Court, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 166 of 1984/ sessions Trial No. 1 of May, 19815 issuing summons against the present petitioners under Section 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Facts are briefly as follows : -

(2.) ONE Sisir Pal of village Kaiyanpur lodged a complaint with Kandi police Station alleging that the petitioners with Sunil Roy, Samar bagdi, Dilip Bagdi, Biswdnath Bagdi and Manga J Bagdi entered into the plot of land where the complainant along with his three brothers were transplanting paddy seedling and that there was a quarrel between the parties, that after the intervention of others all of them went to Thana and the matter was settled. It was further alleged in the complaint that on the same day after some time, the petitioners and the above named 4 other persons entered into the land and began to cultivate the, same. On being informed the complainant along with 3 brothers came to the spot and asked the petitioners and other men not be Cultivate the land. But, instead of leaving the places, they suddenly caught hold of Balai Paul, complainant's brother and began to assault him and he was suddenly hit by a Bailam and he fell down. All miscreants then left and the victim was taken to Kandi hospital where he died.

(3.) ON the basis of the complaint, police started the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and other accused persons, the petitioners and other accused were committed to the court of Sessions, Murshidabad, but thereafter, on consideration of the materials, on record and the charge-sheet submitted, the learned addl. Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Murshidabad, by order dated 14. 11. 84 framed charge under Section 302/ 149 against the five accused, namely, sunil Roy, Samr Bagdi, Dilip Bagdi, Biswanath Bagdi and Mangal Bagdi, but by the same order, the learned Judge discharged the petitioners under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the charge against them was groundless. Subsequently, an application was filed by the additional Public Prosecutor for the State praying for summoning the accused persons in this case. The application was heard on 18. 5. 85 and on 25. 5. 85 the learned Judge passed an order summoning the petitioners as accused persons under Section 319 (1)of the Code.