JUDGMENT 1. - Both the revision petitions arises out of the First Information Report No. 125/2001 Police Station, Napasar for offence u/ss. 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC. 2. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 267/2002, petitioners-Shera Ram, Hari Ram, Sharwan Ram, Ram Chandra @ Chanra Ram, Ramu Ram, Magi Lal, Birna Ram and Sri Ram @ Sri Lal have challenged the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner framing charge against the petitioners for offence u/ss. 302, 149, 147, 148, 341 & 120-B IPC. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 266/2002, petitioners-Ramu Ram, Mangi Lal, Birma Ram and Sri Ram @ Sri Lal have challenged the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner whereby he rejected the application of prosecution u/s. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took cognizance against the petitioners for offence u/ss. 302/149, 147, 148, 341 & 120-B IPC. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.11.2001 at about 9.05 a.m., a typed First Information Report was given to the S.H.O., Police Station, Napasar by one Mangi Lal stating inter alia that he alongwith his deceased brother Mohan Lal was proceeding towards Bikaner in Toyota car, after loading peanuts from the field of Jagdish. When they reached near the field of Bhagirath, they found accused-Bhagirath, Luna Ram, Kheta Ram, Ramu Ram, Mangi Lal, Daula Ram, Ratna Ram, Sri Lal, Birma Ram, Ram Ratan and Bhanwar Lal armed with deadly weapons like Jaies, Selas, Barchhis and lathis alongwith cattle cart standing on the road. The car was stopped by them. They shouted to kill the enemy in car. He came out of the car and made escape but Mohan lal was caught. He concealed himself behind a tree and witnessed the incident. All the accused persons mounted assault on Mohan Lal by diverse weapon. At that time, Sita Ram and Roopa Ram also arrived in a jeep. Accused persons ran away considering that Mohan Lal was dead. He went near Mohan Lal and found him unconscious. He was taken to the hospital in jeep where he succumbed to the injuries. On this information, police registered a case for aforesaid offences and proceeded with investigation. The investigation was entrusted to CID (CB). The police found that out of the accused persons named in the FIR, only Kheta Ram and Bhanwar Lal participated in the incident. He was taken to the hospital in jeep where he succumbed to the injuries. On this information, police registered a case for aforesaid offences and proceeded with investigation. The investigation was entrusted to CID (CB). The police found that out of the accused persons named in the FIR, only Kheta Ram and Bhanwar Lal participated in the incident. However they added the names of Shera Ram, Hari Ram, Ramchandra, Sharwan Ram and Lala Ram (challenged u/s. 299 Cr.P.C.). Police filed an application u/s. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the petitioners in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 256/2002, i.e., Ramu Ram, Mangi Lal, Birma Ram and Sri Ram. Learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the police on the ground that the names; of said persons appeared in FIR. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 257/2002 that names of Shera Ram, Hari Ram, Ramchandra and Sharwan Ram have not appeared in the FIR. He has also submitted that a clear statement was made by the counsel for the complainant not to frame charge against Shera Ram, Hari Ram, Ramchandra and Sharwan Ram, but, it was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that other eye-witnesses have taken their names. 5. On having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of entire material on record, I am of the view that it is not safe to take out any of the accused persons at this stage. There are two sets of witnesses and at this stage, it is difficult to say that who participated and who did not participate. Things can be threshed only during trial. Thus, I do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with both the impugned orders in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, both the revision petitions stand dismissed. Record of both the cases be returned forthwith.Revision Petitions allowed. *******