IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.392 of 2009 SUNIL JEE @ SUNIL DA @ SUNIL KUMAR RAJAK @ BABAN BAITHA @ BABAN KUMAR, SON OF KAMESHWAR BAITHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANCHBAR, P.S. VISHRAMPUR, DISTRICT PALAMU (JHARKHAND)……………………………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI 3. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, SADAR COURT HAJAT, JAMUI……………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 21.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has 21 cases against him, out of which mostly are in Jamui Courts. His grievance is that he is not being produced in cases pending against him and he is not being remanded in other cases due to which prosecution is getting delayed. Learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions as to which authority of the Police Department is in a position to monitor the production of the petitioner in different cases pending against him in different districts. On instructions, he submits that it is the Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur, who has jurisdiction over the districts of Jamui, Munger and Banka and, therefore, he will be in a position to monitor the - 2 - production of the petitioner in different cases pending against him in the courts of above districts. In the circumstances, the Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur is directed to take stock of the cases of the petitioner pending in different courts and monitor his production in the cases on dates fixed so that the trial against the petitioner in respective cases may not be delayed on account of his non-production. He will also see that in cases in which petitioner has not yet been remanded, he is produced at an early date. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)