JUDGMENT The order impugned is passed by taking recourse to section 319, CrPC, whereby the learned trial Judge, after recording of the prosecution evidence, has directed that applicant Badrilal, who was initially not made accused in the case, be tried alongwith other accused persons facing trial under S. 307/34, IPC. Section 319 provides that where in the course of any enquiry or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the instant case it is noted that not only the name of the applicant was mentioned in the FIR lodged by the injured himself, but he is also named as one of the assailants by the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution in evidence. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Court below cannot be termed as baseless. No jurisdictional error or irregularity is noticed in the impugned order. No interference is therefore, called for by this Court by taking recourse to section 397 or 482, CrPC. It was, however, submitted by the LC for the applicant that the Court below has straightway directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. If further submitted that the applicant apprehends that in case he appears before the trial Court, the Court may commit him to custody and refuse bail. So, while dismissing this petition I direct that on applicant's appearing before the trial Court, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of that Court. The petition thus stands disposed of as aforesaid.