JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-applicant has moved this application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. in respect of FIR No. 243/2011 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3/25 of Indian Arms Act. The application filed by the applicant for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 Bharatpur vide order dated 19.01.2013. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that complainant-Shri Banay Singh in his "Parcha- Bayan" alleged that on 13.5.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening he and his daughter-in-law Smt. Pista were attacked by as many as eight persons including the present applicant and fire-arms were also used by the applicant, Shri Siya Ram and Bishan Singh and as a result thereof both of them received fire arm injuries also on various parts of their body. It was also alleged that when some persons as named in the "Parcha-Bayan" intervened, fire arm shots were aimed towards them also. On the basis of Parcha-Bayan, FIR towards them also. On the basis of Parcha-Bayan, FIR No. 243/2011 for offences under Sections 143 and 307 IPC was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against five persons for various offences including offence under Section 307 IPC but the present applicant and the aforesaid- Siya Ram and Bishan Singh were not charge-sheeted by the investigating agency. Charges for various offences including offence under Section 307 IPC were framed against five persons against whom charge-sheet was filed and presently they are facing trial. The third, application filed by the accused- Narendra @ Guddu, who is facing trial, was allowed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 06.07.2012 after taking into consideration the statements of injured-witnesses- Shri Banay Singh and Smt. Pista. This fact was also taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench that the main accusation levelled by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is against Shri Siya Ram, Bishan Singh and Roop Singh i.e. the present applicant. Similarly, the third application for grant of bail filed by the co-accused-Shri Dungar Singh and Lokesh @ Lala was also allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 30.05.2012 on similar grounds. 3. It appears that during trial, complainant-Shri Banay Singh filed an application under Section 319 Cr.RC. Similarly, the third application for grant of bail filed by the co-accused-Shri Dungar Singh and Lokesh @ Lala was also allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 30.05.2012 on similar grounds. 3. It appears that during trial, complainant-Shri Banay Singh filed an application under Section 319 Cr.RC. on 10.05.2012 with the averment that from the evidence available on record it is clear that present applicant-Roop Singh, Bishan Singh and Siya Ram were also involved in the incident and they used fire arms. It was prayed by the complainant that cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act may be taken against the aforesaid persons also. The learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, vide its order dated 01.12.2012 took cognizance against all three aforesaid persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act and to procure their appearance before the Court bailable warrants were issued. In compliance of the bailable warrant, applicant appeared before the trial Court and moved application to release him on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2013. In these circumstances, the accused-applicant has come to this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the applicant was not arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken against him by the Court below under Section 319 Cr.PC. on an application filed by the complainant and he has been summoned by way of bailable warrant and, therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail without considering the merit and de-merit of the case i.e. without looking into the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant in the incident, but the learned Court below without considering the matter in a right perspective dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant after appearing before the Court in compliance of the bailable warrant. It was further submitted that if an accused is brought before the Court or he himself appears before it on cognizance being taken against him under Section 319 CrP.C., bail bonds are taken from him only for the purpose of his presence before the Court during trial and he is entitled to be released on bail as a right. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the cases of Gurmeet Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 (2) RCC (Raj.) 704 and Charan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 (1) Crimes 89 (Raj.) . 5. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the basis of evidence available on record, the Court below took cognizance against the present applicant and two other persons, who were not arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the same has not been challenged by any of them and, therefore, they have to face trial alongwith the accused, who are already facing trial for various offences including offence under Section 307 Cr.PC and the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail merely because cognizance has been taken against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and he has been summoned by way of bailable warrant. It was further submitted that grant of bail in a non-bailable case depends on the provisions of bail bonds and the well settled legal position prevalent in this regard and not on at what stage cognizance has been taken or by what process his attendance before the Court has been procured by the Court. 6. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law, I find that issue of a process to compel or procure the appearance of an accused before a Court and grant of bail to him in a non-bailable case are entirely separate and distinct subject matters and do not depend on each other. Similarly, grant of bail to an accused in such a case does not depend on the fact at what stage cognizance has been taken by the Court against him or at what stage of the proceedings he has been brought before the Court or he has appeared before it, but it would depend on the relevant provisions of bail bonds as provided in Chapter XXXIII of Cr.PC. and the well settled legal position prevalent in this regard Chapter VI of Cr.PC. deals with process to compel appearance of an accused and provides that the Court may in its discretion either issue summons or warrant of arrest. The warrant may be either bailable or non-bailable. When a bailable warrant is served upon an accused, security is taken from him and he is required to attend the Court at the specified date and time whereas in case of non-bailable warrant, he is to be arrested and brought before the Court by the police officer or other person to whom it was issued and by whom it was executed. This Chapter nowhere provides in what cases summons or bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant are to be issued and it is in the discretion of the Court what process is to be issued to compel the attendance of the accused before it. The Court may in its discretion issue bailable warrant or even summons in a non-bailable case and in a case of most grave offence also as the sole purpose to issue such a process is to procure his presence before the Court, but merely by that reason it cannot be held that the accused in entitled to be released on bail. In a case it is possible that the accused without service of the process upon him at his own may appear before the Court as soon as it comes into his knowledge that some process has been issued against him by the Court but in such a case also he is not entitled to be released on bail as a right irrespective of the gravity of the offence without considering the merit and demerit of the case. Thus, the grant of bail to an accused is not dependent upon the nature or mode of the process issued for his appearance before the Court but it would depend on the provisions of the bail bonds as provided in Chapter XXXIII of Cr.PC. Thus, the grant of bail to an accused is not dependent upon the nature or mode of the process issued for his appearance before the Court but it would depend on the provisions of the bail bonds as provided in Chapter XXXIII of Cr.PC. and the well settled principles of law for grant of bail. The release of an accused on bail is in the discretion of the Court which is to be exercised judicially taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the offence and the Court is not bound to release him on bail merely because bailable warrant or summons was issued by the Court to secure his attendance and in case of bailable warrant security was also taken from him to attend the court on a specified date and time. The Court granting bail has to consider among other circumstances the factors such as the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to complainant; and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the Court while considering an application for grant of bail in a non- bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted. So the contention made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail as a right by the reason that he has been summoned by the Court below by way of bailable warrant is not legally tenable. 7. Similarly, an accused is not entitled to be released on bail as a right by the reason that he was not arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet and cognizance was taken against him by the Court at a later stage under Section 319 Cr.PC. Grant of bail to a person is not dependent on the stage at which the cognizance has been taken against him, but on the provisions of law and the well settled legal position prevalent in this regard. Section 319 Cr.PC. Grant of bail to a person is not dependent on the stage at which the cognizance has been taken against him, but on the provisions of law and the well settled legal position prevalent in this regard. Section 319 Cr.PC. provides that where, in the course of any inquiry into, 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. This provision also provides that where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. The provision further provides that the Court may proceed against such person as if he had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. Thus, when it is very much clear that the person against whom cognizance has been taken under Section 319 Cr.PC. may also be arrested and detained or for his attendance before the Court he may be summoned by the Court and it shall be deemed as if cognizance was taken against him at the initial stage and he liable to be tried alongwith the accused already before the Court, there can be no reason to treat him in a different manner for the purpose of grant of bail. Whether such person is entitled to be enlarged on, bail would depend on the facts and circumstances of that particular case, but he cannot claim to be released as a right merely by the reason that cognizance has been taken against him under Section 319 Cr.PC. Therefore, this contention is also not legally tenable that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail merely by the reason that the cognizance has been taken against him by the Court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 8. So far as the case law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it being based on different set of facts is of no help to the applicant. In the case of Gurmeet Singh (supra), the questions raised in the present case were neither raised nor considered by the learned Single Bench. So far as the case law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it being based on different set of facts is of no help to the applicant. In the case of Gurmeet Singh (supra), the questions raised in the present case were neither raised nor considered by the learned Single Bench. So far as the case of Charan Singh (supra), is concerned, from the facts it appears that order of cognizance made under Section 319 Cr.PC. was challenged by way of criminal revision petition before the High Court and while disposing of the revision petition, a direction was made that the accused shall appear before the trial Court on or before the date specified in the order and in failing to do so the warrant of arrest issued by the trial Court for the purpose of securing the presence'Qf the accused shall be revived. It appears that in compliance of the direction made, the accused appeared before the trial Court and filed an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC and the same was dismissed by the Court. In such circumstances, the learned Single Bench observed that when a process is issued after impleading a person as an accused alongwith others already facing trial the purpose is to secure his appearance before the Court and he should be present during trial on all dates of hearing thereafter. In the present case, the order of cognizance has not so far been challenged and bailable warrant was issued by the Court below to secure the presence of the applicant to face trial alongwith the accused who are already facing trial. It is also to be noted that in the aforesaid case it was also observed by the learned Single Bench that when a report under Section 173 Cr.PC is filed a Magistrate can summon such persons who are concerned in the offence even though their names are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. It is also to be noted that in the aforesaid case it was also observed by the learned Single Bench that when a report under Section 173 Cr.PC is filed a Magistrate can summon such persons who are concerned in the offence even though their names are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. So far as a case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions is concerned, the aforesaid observation is contrary to the well settled legal position that if a person is not arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet in a case exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the Magistrate is not entitled to take cognizance against the left out accused and he is to commit the case to the Sessions Court and it is the Sessions Court only which can take cognizance against such a left out person under Section 319 Cr.PC. Now it is to be considered whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail or not? 9. On consideration of material made available for my perusal as well as the statements of injured witnesses which are available on record and more parti looking to the role attributed to the present applicant in the incident and the gravity of the offence, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, I do not find it a fit case in which benefit of bail is to be granted to the applicant. It is also pertinent to note that in the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench by which benefit of bail was given to the co-accused, who are presently facing trial, it was specifically observed that the main accusation by the prosecution witnesses is against three accused including the present applicant and, therefore, on the ground of parity also the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.Bail Application Dismissed. *******