IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.389 of 2011 Manju Devi Versus The State of Bihar & ors. ----------- 2. 15.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that Trial No.1170 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No.1052 of 2005 is not proceeding further since Ashok Mistry (respondent no.8) is evading appearance in the court even though his anticipatory bail was rejected twice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that on perusal of the order sheet of the aforesaid case, it would appear that the process for securing the attendance of the accused Ashok Mistry (respnedent no.8) has been taken. In this connection learned counsel submits that the court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest as also the processes under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has also called for the report from the police and the police are making all endeavours to secure the attendance of respondent no.8. Considering the submissions, I find that due processes have been issued for securing the attendance of co-accused Ashok Mistry. However, it will be open for the petitioner, who is the complainant, to furnish necessary details with respect to movable/immovable properties of respondent no.8, which could be attached. In case such application is filed with necessary details, the same would be considered in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)