IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9188 of 2011 PAWAN KUMAR @ PAWAN CHAUHAN @ PAWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 27.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. While passing order dated 16.3.2011, the court was directing the production of the witnessed and for that, it had directed the Director General of Police, Bihar to submit a report as to what action he had taken against the officers who were cited as witnesses and who did not appear for giving their evidence. A report has been submitted vide letter no. 654/CR by the DIG of Police, Central Range, Patna indicating as if a lot of orders were issued to the different police officers including some of the Superintendents of police for production of witnesses who are named in the charge sheet. The contention, by filing a supplementary affidavit, is that charges were framed on 2.11.2009 and the first witness was examined on 17.3.2011 and thereafter two witnesses were produced on 19th and 20th April, 2011 and thereafter there is again a lull as regards the production of witnesses. If the police is not acting in performance of its statutory duties to produce the witnesses, then accused persons could not be kept confined for indefinite period. The most unfortunate aspect of the matter is that the trial judges are simply treating the State as some thing so sacrosanct that they feel shy of slapping costs for 2 giving unnecessary adjournments. The uneven treatment meted out to the State counsel and its officers, probably, is the reason that such instances are rampantly being confronted by the court as regards non-production of witnesses. In that view of the matter and considering the above, let petitioner, Pawan Kumar alias Pawan Chauhan alias Pawan is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of ADJ – II, Patna City in S.T. No. 668 of 2009 arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case no. 257 of 2002. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)